SCOTT, Sir Edward Dolman (1793-1851), of Barr Hall , Great Barr, Staffordshire

A country gentleman and the former champion of Lichfield’s independent party, the ‘Blues’, Scott was described by Charles Dod as a ‘moderate Whig’, but another parliamentary guide placed him in the ‘moderate Tory party’.1Dod’s parliamentary companion (1837), 161; The assembled Commons (1837), 156. He was listed by Stanley as one of the ‘Derby dilly’, 23 Feb. 1835, but was described by the Standard as ‘a moderate Whig, voting on both sides alternately’, although confusingly, the same paper on another occasion called him a ‘conservative Whig’.2R. Stewart, The foundation of the Conservative party, 1830-1867 (1978), 376; The Standard, 26 July 1837, 11 Aug. 1837. Perhaps the definitive judgment came from the leading Staffordshire Whig Lord Hatherton, who recorded that Scott:

was one of the Reformers who seceded with Ld Stanley & Graham, & who unwilling to follow them absolutely across the house, have staid halfway, constantly balancing between the two parties, … a game that may be kept up for a short time; but which sooner or later always brings a man to the ground.3Hatherton Journal, 20 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffordshire Record Office, D1178/1.

Although he had supported the reform bill, Scott took an independent line thereafter, and his endorsement of Peel’s minority government, 1834-5, irked Thomas William Anson, 1st earl of Lichfield, the main electoral influence in Lichfield, and foreshortened Scott’s parliamentary career. Locally, Scott was regarded as a ‘half-and-half’, and local Tories, like William Dyott, were also less than impressed with his voting record, the old general telling the baronet in 1835 that he had ‘sunk in favour with many of his friends’.4The Times, 13 Dec. 1834; Dyott’s diary (1907), ii. 187-8.

Scott’s father, Joseph Scott (1752-1828), had been MP for Worcester 1802-6, and received a baronetcy in 1806.5HP Commons, 1790-1820, v. 111-12. His son came forward as the champion of Lichfield’s ‘Blues’ at the 1830 general election, and fought a spirited campaign before retiring.6HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 13. The following year Scott was returned without opposition, after one of the members retired in his favour.7Ibid. This was part of a temporary accommodation between the ‘Blues’ and Lord Lichfield, who wanted to secure two Reformers, rather than a permanent alliance.8Ibid.

After supporting the reform bill, Scott was elected in second place ahead of a Radical at the 1832 general election, at which he professed to be ‘an independent man … tied to no minsters’, who would ‘be the tool of no party’.9Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. He is not known to have spoken in debate during this time. An obituary attributed Scott’s ‘delicate state of health’ to his ‘long attendance upon committees of the House of Commons’, but no trace of such activity has been found other than serving on one election inquiry.10Derby Mercury, 7 Jan. 1852; PP 1833 (181), viii. 2. He divided against Attwood’s motion for a committee on distress, 21 Mar. 1833, but supported the removal of Jewish disabilities, 22 May 1833, and the admission of Dissenters to universities, 28 July 1833. The following year he cast votes against a low fixed duty on corn and shorter parliaments.

At the 1835 general election, when he was elected in second place, Scott again claimed to be ‘independent of all governments’, but commented of Peel’s minority administration that ‘I do not give implicit credit to their promises, but am not inclined to give them a factious opposition’.11Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835. He followed this up by supporting Manners Sutton for the speakership and dividing for the address, 19, 26 Feb. 1835, and opposing Russell’s resolution on the Irish church, 2 Apr. 1835. In the same session he also voted for E.S. Cayley’s motion for a silver standard, 1 June 1835. After the Whigs’ return to office, Scott returned to the Liberal fold, although he still opposed their Irish church and tithes policy, 3 June 1836. Thereafter he opposed radical political reforms and free trade.

Scott retired at the 1837 general election, ousted by the Anson interest, who secured a ‘ministerialist’ Whig as his replacement.12Dyott’s diary, ii. 256-8; The Times, 27 July 1837; Morning Post, 19 July 1837; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 20 July 1837; The Standard, 11 Aug. 1837. He mooted standing at the 1841 general election but declined to come forward.13HP Commons, 1820-1832, vii. 33-4 Although he was later politically estranged from Scott, Dyott described the baronet as a ‘good-humoured country gentleman, but possessing none of the wit and humour of his father’, and on another occasion as an ‘honourable, honest man’.14Dyott’s diary, ii. 42, 108. On Scott’s death in 1851 his estates and title passed to his eldest son Francis Edward Scott (1824-63), who had already inherited a baronetcy from his maternal grandfather. After the death of Francis Edward’s two sons, who both held the title for a short time, the estates and baronetcy passed to Scott’s second son Edward Dolman (1826-1905).15HP Commons, 1820-1832, ii. 34.