WELBY, Glynne Earle (1806-1875), of Denton Hall, nr. Grantham, Lincs.
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Educationb. 26 June 1806, 1st s. of Sir William Earle Welby†, 2nd bt., of Denton and Wilhelmina, da. and h. of William Spry, gov. Barbados. educ. Rugby 1820; Oriel, Oxf. 1824. m. 6 Mar. 1828, Frances, da. of Sir Montague Cholmeley*, 1st bt., 7s. (2 d.v.p.) 4da. (2 d.v.p.). suc. fa. as 3rd bt. 3 Nov. 1852; took additional name of Gregory by royal lic. 5 July 1861. d. 23 Aug. 1875.
Capt. Royal S. Lincs. militia 1847, maj. 1852, lt.-col. 1852-4.
Sheriff, Lincs. 1860-1.
Originally from the area of Wellibi, near Grantham, the Welbys could trace their ancestry back to the Conquest. William Welby† (d. 1657), who was elected as a Parliamentarian but prevented from taking his seat by Cromwell, acquired the manor of Denton, near the Leicestershire border, in 1648. This Member’s grandfather represented Grantham, 1802-6, as did his father, who headed the local Red interest, 1807-20, and his father-in-law Sir Montague Cholmeley, who was returned at a by-election, 1820-6. At the 1830 general election Welby came forward on the family interest in place of his brother-in-law Montague Cholmeley, who had assured him that he intended to stand down. It was rumoured that he would be returned unopposed, but Cholmeley’s decision to offer again forced a contest. During his campaign he declared his principles to be those of his father, citing his ‘attachment to church and state’, but refused to give ‘any pledge as to my future conduct’. He topped the four-day poll and was returned with Cholmeley.1
He was listed by the Wellington ministry among their ‘friends’, but he voted against them in the crucial division on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. Yet he divided against the second reading of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, 22 Mar., and for Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831. On account of these votes, the local press did not expect him to offer again at the ensuing general election, but he returned to Denton and immediately offered an unrepentant address, 24 Apr.2 Canvassing next day, he told the electors that he ‘could not consent to assist’ in depriving so many voters ‘of their rights and privileges ... for no other fault than that of being poor’. His effigy was burnt in the town, but with the support of the London out-voters he topped the three-day poll. At the declaration