COPELAND, William Taylor (1797-1868), of 37 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Middlesex of ; The Poplars, Leyton, Essex

‘A very opulent porcelain manufacturer and merchant’, Copeland was dismissed by Benjamin Disraeli in 1842 as a ‘thick-headed Alderman’.1The assembled Commons (1837), 48; Disraeli letters, iv. 1241. Described as a ‘Reformer’ when he was MP for Coleraine in the early 1830s, Copeland later sided with the Conservatives, leading some to dub him a ‘weathercock’.2The assembled Commons (1837), 48; Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 July 1837, 10 Apr. 1852. As an Irish MP, Copeland’s stance, including supporting reforms to the Irish church and tithes, owed much to the influence of his local supporters, who tended to be Presbyterian reformers. After retreating to his stronghold of Stoke, Copeland’s essential Conservatism was revealed in his stout support for the established church. However, on other issues he was always prepared to modify his opinions and was best categorised a ‘moderate’ or ‘Liberal’ Conservative’, rather than the ‘full-blown Tory’ portrayed by one of his rivals.3Dod’s parliamentary companion (1838), 97; Dod’s parliamentary companion: new parliament (1857), 169; E.F. Leveson-Gower, Bygone years (1905), 240. Indeed, he remained something of a trimmer throughout his political career. As a parliamentarian it was said that Copeland ‘had never taken any conspicuous part in that capacity’, but he was an effective representative of local interests and an active committee man.4Gent. Mag. (1868), i. 691.

Copeland’s father William (1765-1826) had been apprenticed to the Stoke pottery manufacturer Josiah Spode (1755-1827), and from 1794 was the firm’s London merchant. On his father’s death in 1826, Copeland became joint partner with Spode’s son. After the deaths of his partner and his heir, Copeland bought out the Spode family’s assets in 1833, including purchasing the London business for £21,500, the Stoke factory for £44,000, half of Fenton Park colliery for £8,950 and 189 workers’ houses in Stoke for £11,000.5HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 739-40; J.C. Wedgwood, Staffordshire pottery and its history (1913), 136; J. Ward, The borough of Stoke-upon-Trent (1843), 502-4, 554. The firm was known successively as Copeland and Garratt (1833-47), W.T. Copeland, late Spode (1847-67), and W.T. Copeland and Sons after 1867.6D. Stuart (ed.), People of the potteries (1985), 68. The firm exploited the Spode name and tradition of Japanese designs, but also developed parianware (a ‘hard white stoneware’ used as a marble substitute for statuettes) in 1846 and a new colour, Cerulean Blue.7Ibid.; A. Popp, Business structure, business culture and the industrial district: the Potteries, c. 1850-1914 (2001), 122-4; G.W. Rhead and F.A. Rhead, Staffordshire pots & potters (1906), 267; Wedgwood, Staffordshire pottery, 134, 180. As a merchant, Copeland had strong connections with the City of London, where he was sheriff in 1828-9, elected an alderman in 1829, and lord mayor in 1835-6.

It was through his membership of the Irish Society, which managed the City Corporation’s Irish estates, that Copeland came to contest Coleraine in county Londonderry in 1831, being presented as a ‘Protestant reformer’ to stand against the Beresford interest.8HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 823. One newspaper later sniped that Copeland ‘has just as much claim to represent it as one of his black teapots has to represent the Elgin marbles’.9Morning Post, 25 Apr. 1834. There appears to be no foundation to the later claim that Copeland was brought in by Daniel O’Connell.10Leveson-Gower, Bygone years, 240. Although defeated, Copeland was seated on petition, 4 Aug. 1831.11HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 739-40. He stood his ground at the 1832 general election, but was defeated by the Beresford nominee on the casting vote of the mayor, only to again be seated on petition, 17 May 1833.12CJ, lxxxviii. 406; Belfast News-Letter, 18 Dec. 1832. He attended a City meeting called in defence of the West India interest shortly afterwards.13Morn. Chro., 28 May 1833. Copeland’s voting pattern when MP for Coleraine reflected the views of the reformers in his constituency. He was among the minority of 150 who voted to retain the appropriation clause in the Irish church bill, 21 June 1833, but he voted against O’Connell’s motion for repeal of the union between Britain and Ireland, 29 Apr. 1834. He opposed a low fixed duty on corn, 7 Mar. 1834, but his name was absent from many other divisions and he spoke briefly and rarely on a few minor issues.14Hansard, 22 May 1834, vol. 23, c. 1228; 16 June 1834, vol. 24, c. 442.

At the 1835 general election, Copeland was re-elected for Coleraine. To his Irish supporters, he declared his ‘unalterable attachment to the great cause of Reform’ and his desire to ‘eradicate every abuse in Church and State’.15Belfast News-Letter, 19 Dec. 1834. In particular he stressed his support for the ‘total extinction of the tithe’, and he also advocated ‘the opening of corporations’, the secret ballot and triennial parliaments.16Northern Herald, 10 Jan. 1835, qu. in The parliamentary-test book, 43. However, Copeland had also attended a Conservative meeting in London and signed the resulting address supporting William IV’s use of the royal prerogative to dismiss Melbourne’s government.17Morn. Chro., 30 Dec. 1834; Belfast News-Letter, 6 Jan. 1835. Copeland’s conduct prompted one observer to remark that the alderman had hitherto been considered a ‘moderate reformer, or, as it is now very properly termed, a Conservative Whig’.18The Times, 23 Jan. 1835. Although regarded as a ‘Reformer’ or ‘Whig’ at the start of the 1835 session, his votes thereafter indicated a drift to the Conservatives.19Belfast News-Letter, 30 Jan. 1835; Morning Post, 30 Jan. 1835. He sided with that party in the key divisions on the speakership and the address, 19, 26 Feb. 1835, and was listed by Lord Stanley as a member of the ‘Derby Dilly’, 23 Feb. 1835.20R. Stewart, The foundation of the Conservative party, 1830-1867 (1978), 376. He opposed Chandos’ motion to repeal the malt tax, 10 Mar. 1835. However, on Irish issues, Copeland’s position was less clear-cut. He supported Russell’s resolution on the Irish church, 2 Apr. 1835, although he later backed Peel’s proposal to split the Irish church and tithes bill into two parts, 25 July 1835. He also paired off in favour of the Irish municipal corporations bill, 28 Mar. 1836.

At the 1837 general election, Copeland removed from Coleraine to Stoke-on-Trent, and was elected as a Conservative. During the campaign, Copeland pointed to his votes in favour of abolition of slavery, national education, municipal reform in England and Ireland, and tithe commutation as evidence of his progressive credentials.21Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837. He associated himself with the principles of Earl Grey, but said he had opposed Russell’s church rate bill ‘because, if the church be destroyed and its property alienated, there is no safety for private property’.22Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 July 1837.

In the following Parliament, Copeland cast votes against the ballot, repeal of the corn laws, and Irish church appropriation. He denied that City opinion was favourable to the Whigs’ budget, 14 May 1841.23Hansard, 14 May 1841, vol. 58, cc. 421-2. Copeland was returned in second place at the 1841 general election after declaring himself ‘an enemy to the total repeal of the corn laws’, which he believed would lower wages.24Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1841. He blamed the distress of the country on ‘our abominable system of overtrading’. Although Copeland derided the ‘Somerset House triumvirate’, this was not followed up by any votes to reform the Poor Law Commission.25Ibid.

Copeland supported Peel’s revised sliding scale on corn and the reintroduction of income tax in 1842 and in the same year made a brief contribution to a debate on truck payment.26Hansard, 19 Apr. 1842, vol. 62, cc. 863-4. He backed a ten hour day for factory workers in 1844 but the following year opposed the government’s Maynooth college bill at every stage. However, in 1846 Copeland was one of only seventeen Conservative MPs who voted for the repeal of the corn laws having previously opposed the Maynooth bill. Copeland expressed ‘hearty concurrence’ with Peel’s measure, and argued that a total and immediate abolition would be preferable to the proposed phased approach, although he nevertheless backed his leader’s measure in the division lobby.27Hansard, 6 Mar. 1846, vol. 84, 745-6. Religious beliefs compelled Copeland to criticise Sunday trading in London, 15 Apr. 1847.28Hansard, 15 Apr. 1847, vol. 91, cc. 846-7. Returned unopposed at the general election a few months later, during the campaign Copeland denied that he was a recent convert to free trade and claimed that ‘the state of our monetary system is an impediment to prosperity’.29Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847. Although he indicated support for a bimetallic standard, Copeland seems to have been generally absent from debates and votes on monetary policy.30Ibid.

In 1849 Copeland opposed a smoke prohibition bill as unworkable and harmful to industry.31Hansard, 11 July 1849, vol. 107, c. 194. His political allegiance after the repeal of the corn laws has confused historians. J.B. Conacher categorised Copeland as a Liberal Conservative whose allegiance was ‘uncertain’ and A.B. Erickson and W.D. Jones have labelled him a ‘Conservative Peelite’.32J.B. Conacher, The Peelites and the party system (1972), 230; W.D. Jones and A.B. Erickson, The Peelites, 1845-1857 (1972), 335. Copeland was generally counted with the Derbyites, but he voted with the Peelites against Disraeli’s motion for agricultural relief, 3 Feb. 1851. Having joined the ultra-Protestant National Club in 1850, the following year Copeland endorsed Russell’s action against Papal aggression. At the 1852 general election Copeland described himself as an ‘independent member’, although this did not prevent him from declaring that ‘there never was a more feeble administration than that of Lord John Russell’.33Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Apr. 1852, 10 July 1852. He conceded that he ‘had not made many speeches in the House … but no one could accuse him of having neglected his duty in the working part of the business. He had acted upon public and private committees’.34Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Apr. 1852. However, Copeland was ousted by two Liberals.

He was returned at the top of the poll at the 1857 general election, during which he advocated suffrage extension, revision of the poor laws, currency reform, law reform, differentiation of income tax and shrewdly tapped the popularity of Palmerston, whom he promised to give a ‘free and independent support’.35Staffordshire Advertiser, 21, 28 Mar. 1857. Copeland honoured his pledges to support the ballot and the abolition of church rates in 1857 and 1858. He voted against Palmerston on the conspiracy to murder bill, 19 Feb. 1858, supported Derby’s reform bill in 1859 and was re-elected in second place at the subsequent general election. In the later phase of his parliamentary career, Copeland continued his habit of brief short contributions in debates relating to London, especially workhouses, and the Potteries.36Hansard, 11 June 1857, vol. 145, c. 1578; 25 June 1857, vol. 146, cc. 380-1; 11 May 1858, vol. 150, cc. 449-51; 15, 25 Feb. 1859, vol. 152, cc. 394-5, 944-5; 28 Feb. 1860, vol. 156, c. 1986; 25 June 1861, vol. 163, c. 1557. He supported whipping as a punishment to deter aggravated assaults on women, and was a vocal critic of the ecclesiastical commission, expressing disbelief that the body’s expense exceeded the funds it administered.37Hansard, 2 May 1860, 6 June 1860, vol. 158, cc. 534, 2104-5; 25 July 1860, vol. 159, c. 153; 8 Aug. 1860, vol. 160, c. 906; 21 Feb. 1862, vol. 165, c. 545. Copeland retired at the 1865 general election and two years later took his four sons into partnership in the business.38Stuart, People of the potteries, 68. He voted for the Conservative candidate at the 1868 by-election on Stoke-on-Trent in February and died a few months later.39Birmingham Daily Post, 14 Apr. 1868.

Aside from his extensive business interests, which undoubtedly limited his parliamentary activity, Copeland was heavily involved in City charities, owned a stud farm and amassed a collection of sporting paintings.40Gent. Mag. (1868), i. 691; Stuart, People of the potteries, 68. His successor as head of the pottery firm was his second son Richard Pirie Copeland (1841-1915).41Ibid. W.T. Copeland and Sons remained in family hands until 1966, when it was purchased by an American company, and was renamed Spode Ltd in 1970.42P.W. Gay & R.L. Smyth, The British pottery industry (1974), 86-8. The firm was bought by the Portmeirion Group in 2009.43http://www.spode.co.uk/template-99.php?page=231&current_section=507.