Cooper, one of an old Norfolk family who combined staunch Anglican affiliations with literary pretensions, was granted administration of his father’s estate, which was sworn under £10,000.
He was a fairly regular attender who gave general support to Lord Liverpool’s government and occasionally spoke in debate. He divided against economies in revenue collection, 4 July 1820. He voted in defence of ministers’ conduct towards Queen Caroline, 6 Feb., and against Catholic claims, 28 Feb. 1821. He divided with government on the state of the revenue, 9 Mar., and against repeal of the additional malt duty, 3 Apr., and army economies, 11 Apr., but was in the minority for omitting arrears from the duke of Clarence’s grant, 18 June. He voted against the disfranchisement of ordnance officials, 12 Apr., and Russell’s reform resolutions, 9 May. He divided for the forgery punishment mitigation bill, 23 May. He was credited with stating that he would oppose the poor relief bill, 2 July 1821.
He was a majority teller against adjourning the debate on private bills, 15 Feb. 1827. He proposed an additional resolution to prevent the ‘manifestly unjust and mischievous’ practice of Members voting on committees to which they had not been appointed, 20 Feb.; this was agreed. He divided against Catholic claims, 6 Mar. He voted for the Clarence annuity bill, 16 Mar., and the spring guns bill, 23 Mar., and with Canning’s ministry for the grant to improve water communications in Canada, 12 June 1827. He divided against repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb., and presented a hostile petition from the dean and chapter of Gloucester, 14 Mar. 1828, when he expressed the hope that if repeal was enacted some substitute for the sacramental test might be found to protect the established church. He questioned a witness in the committee on the East Retford disfranchisement bill, 7 Mar. He opposed an amendment to the lunatics regulation bill to prevent professional persons from acting as commissioners of inquiry into institutions with which they were connected, 17 Mar. He voted with the Wellington ministry against the motion condemning delays in chancery, 24 Apr., and ordnance reductions, 4 July. On the offences against the person bill, 5 May, he argued that juries in rape trials should be allowed to consider both rape and attempted rape charges in each case. He divided against Catholic claims, 12 May 1828. In February 1829 Planta, the patronage secretary, listed him as being ‘opposed to the principle’ of Catholic emancipation. He was indeed ‘overwhelmed with astonishment’ at ministers’ volte face on this issue, 13 Feb. He acknowledged the sincerity of Peel’s motives but maintained that no sufficient cause had been established for conceding emancipation, when Ireland was still governable ‘by the exertion of legal authority’, that if the principle of Protestant exclusivity was abandoned ‘the constitution may be considered as at an end’ and that the notion of securities was ‘completely vain and illusory’. He presented numerous anti-Catholic petitions in February and March and voted accordingly, 6, 18, 23, 27, 30 Mar. He divided against the Maynooth grant, 22 May. He presented a Royal College of Surgeons’ petition for modification of the anatomy bill, 8 May, and a week later moved an instruction to the select committee to consider repealing the law allowing the bodies of murderers to be given over for dissection; he was defeated by 40-8, acting as a minority teller. That day he expressed approval of friendly societies, ‘because they combine the selfish with the social principles and enable men to take care of their friends and neighbours, as well as of themselves’, but thought the bill to regulate them could be improved. He voted to reduce the additional grant for the sculpture of Marble Arch, 25 May 1829. Addressing the Gloucester True Blue Club, 4 Feb. 1830, he reaffirmed his ‘unabated determination to uphold the Protestant institutions of the country’ and declared that while he was ‘still disposed to vote with ... ministers on all occasions which were consistent with the dictates of his conscience’, he would do so ‘in the character of virtuous independence’.
In February 1831 Cooper told the True Blue Club that he wished Lord Grey’s ministry success, but trusted that any ‘practical reform’ would ‘preserve inviolate the ancient rights of the aristocracy and the throne’.
