Cripps, who had banking and brewing interests at Cirencester, was returned unopposed throughout this period as the representative of the townspeople in conjunction with a Member representing the landed interest.
He introduced an apprenticeships bill to increase the powers of magistrates, 25 Mar.; it gained royal assent, 17 June 1823.
Cripps expatiated on the ‘excellence’ of the criminal law consolidation bill and Peel’s other reforms, 22 Feb. 1827. He believed the proposed new corn duties would not harm the manufacturing interest, 12 Mar., but added that landowners ‘must give way a little’ by reducing rents to ensure that land did not go out of cultivation. He praised ministers for listening to the country and modifying their original plan, 19 Mar., and opposed Hume’s amendment for lower duties, 27 Mar., declaring that while he ‘had not the good fortune to possess much land ... he thought the corn question had been fairly settled’. He persuaded Lethbridge to withdraw his Turnpike Acts amendment bill, 27 Mar., but his hint of an alternative measure did not materialize. He was granted a fortnight’s leave, ‘being a material witness at a trial at the ensuing assizes’, 2 Apr. He said ‘a few words’ in support of the sale of game bill, 7 June 1827.
In the autumn of 1830 the Wellington ministry regarded Cripps as one of their ‘friends’, and on 3 Nov. he expressed general approval of the king’s speech and ‘particular satisfaction’ with the ‘assurances of economy’. However, he was absent from the crucial division on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. He voted for the second reading of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, 22 Mar. 1831, but stated two days later that while he was willing to give it fair consideration, it required careful examination in committee so that ‘such alterations may be made ... as will render it palatable to this House and ... consonant with the feelings and wishes of the country’. He wanted the bill ‘to confer a real benefit on the country without endangering any of its institutions’. His name does not appear in the division lists on Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831, but The Times reported that he had voted against the government.
He divided for the second reading of the reintroduced bill, 6 July, but gave no recorded votes for it in committee and was in the minorities for allowing counsel to be heard on the Appleby anti-reform petition, 12 July, and against the disfranchisement of St. Germans, 26 July 1831. He believed that an impartial division of counties would ‘prove beneficial’, particularly to the agricultural interest, 11 Aug. He voted for the bill’s third reading, 19 Sept., but was absent from the division on its passage, 21 Sept., and was a defaulter on the call of the House, 10 Oct. He opposed the printing of the ‘highly objectionable’ Preston anti-corn law petition, 12 Aug., maintaining that the regulations had ‘been productive of infinite good’. In seconding Sadler’s bill to improve the condition of the labouring poor, 11 Oct., he stressed the ‘want of habitations’ as a particular problem. He failed to ascertain whether the chancellor of the exchequer, Althorp, intended to reduce the stamp duty on insurance policies, 12 Dec. He let it be known that he had voted for the second reading of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, made several minor interventions on technical details in committee, 7, 8, 10 Feb., reportedly voted against the enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb., divided for the third reading, 22 Mar., and reportedly voted against Lord Ebrington’s motion for an address asking the king to appoint only ministers committed to carrying an unimpaired measure, 10 May 1832.
