DYOTT, Richard (1808-1891), of Freeford Hall , near Lichfield , Staffordshire

A soldier and country gentleman, the Conservative Dyott’s family had played a distinguished part in Staffordshire politics. His ancestor, ‘Dumb’ Dyott, had shot dead the leading Parliamentarian Robert Grenville, 2nd baron Brooke, from the spire of Lichfield Cathedral in 1643.1A. Hughes, ‘Greville, Robert, second Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court (1607–1643)’, www.oxforddnb.com. A number of his ancestors had represented Lichfield, and his father General William Dyott (1761-1847), had been a stalwart of that city’s ‘Independent’ party since the late eighteenth century, orchestrating the sporadic challenges to the Anson and Trentham interests which dominated the constituency.2HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 359; ibid., 1820-1832, iii. 11; H. M. Stephens, rev. R.T. Stearn, ‘Dyott, William (1761–1847)’, www.oxforddnb.com. In 1814 Dyott’s mother, suffering from illness, had eloped with another man and his father obtained a divorce the following year.3Ibid. After completing his education at Westminster, Dyott pursued a military career, and his consequent non-residence meant that his claim to vote in Lichfield was rejected in 1836.4Dyott’s diary, ed. R.W. Jeffrey (1907), ii. 239.

Dyott came forward as a second Conservative candidate for South Staffordshire at the 1837 general election. He finished third and his father felt that he had not received sufficient backing from local Conservative notables, who had sought a compromise with their Whig opponents to secure the return of John Chetwynd Talbot, viscount Ingestre.5Ibid., 254-63, 276, 317; N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 252-7. Dyott resumed his army career, but continued to harbour hopes for the constituency until 1839, when, after consulting Sir Robert Peel, a neighbour, he decided to focus his attention on Lichfield.6Dyott’s diary, ii. 295-7. Despite campaigning for almost two years, Dyott, who defended the corn laws and independence from the Anson interest, was beaten into third place by a Whig by just eight votes in 1841.7Ibid., 306-12, 331-6, 341-6. His father bemoaned how his ‘beloved son was defeated by treachery, fraud, bribery, and every scandalous invention that villainy could suggest’.8Ibid., 345-6. The following year ‘Dick’, as his father always called him, petitioned against the result, without success.9Ibid., 347-8, 354, 356-7; CJ, xcvi. 526-8; PP 1842 (548), v. 19-24; A. Austin and A. Barron, Reports of cases of controverted elections in the fourteenth parliament of the United Kingdom (1844), 343-75. At his father’s bidding he retired from the army, but his election defeat and leaving ‘the active life he has hitherto engaged’ in 1842 left him ‘dispirited’.10Dyott’s diary, ii. 356-7, 359 (at 359).

Dyott succeeded his father in 1847 and continued to be linked with the representation of Lichfield, but he did not stand again until the 1865 general election.11The Times, 26 Jan. 1846, 3 Apr. 1854, 20 Apr. 1859; Derby Mercury, 5 Apr. 1854; R. Dyott, ‘To the electors of the city of Lichfield’, 1 June 1852, Lichfield Record Office, scrapbook, p. 14, D77/20/10. He was elected in second place, in a poll that relegated his Whig rival of 1841 into third.12The Standard, 19 June 1865; The Times, 24 June 1865; Birmingham Daily Post, 13 July 1865. As the representative of a small borough, Dyott, a Conservative loyalist, made a number of contributions to the debates on parliamentary reform. He complained of the anomalous treatment of small boroughs, 3 June 1867, whereby Tamworth’s boundaries were extended to preserve its two seats, whilst Lichfield’s boundaries were not and it was to be reduced to a single member.13Hansard, 3 June 1867, vol. 187, cc. 1535-6. ‘There should be some sort of justice in meting out the amount of representation to be given to one borough in comparison with another’, he declared.14Ibid., 1536. He later protested that MPs ‘were drifting very fast into electoral districts’, which combined with household suffrage, he thought most dangerous.15Hansard, 25 June 1867, vol. 188, c. 532. So concerned was Dyott that on 27 June 1867 he proposed that freeholders, copyholders and leaseholders with property within parliamentary boroughs be given votes for those boroughs, in order to create ‘an independent class of electors, to balance the more dependent class of voters’ the bill would introduce.16Hansard, 27 June 1867, vol. 188, cc. 700-2. Dyott moved the clause again on 1 July 1867, but it was opposed by Disraeli and rejected.17Hansard, 1 July 1867, vol. 188, c. 782. He divided against granting extra representation to the larger towns and disenfranchising smaller boroughs.

Dyott was re-elected for Lichfield, which had been reduced to a single member, in 1868 and sat until unseated on petition after the 1880 general election. As the ‘last of the ancient family of Dyott’, on his death in 1891, in accordance with his will, Freeford Hall passed to his cousin Richard Burnaby, who changed his name to Dyott.18The Times, 14 Feb. 1891; Birmingham Daily Post, 21 Feb. 1891. Following ‘the medieval custom’ of his ancestors, Dyott was interred at midnight.19The Times, 14 Feb. 1891.