ROPER, Henry (c. 1677-1723)

Roper’s father, one of James II’s Catholic adherents, had fled the country after the 1688 Revolution and died abroad, as did Roper’s two older brothers, John and Christopher, the 6th and 7th Barons. Like the rest of his family, the new Baron Teynham was a Catholic and it is presumed that he spent much of his youth abroad, although evidence of this is scanty. By 1704 he seems to have been back in England because Narcissus Luttrell^‡ recorded a rumour of his impending marriage to Lady Barbara Lennard, daughter of Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 474. A year later Teynham married the daughter of his wealthy Catholic neighbour Viscount Strangford instead, receiving £4,000 of her £12,000 portion as a cash payment in advance of the marriage. Through his connection with the Strangfords he came into possession of the manor of Sturry in Kent. Kent HLC (CKS), U498/F1/2; Hasted, Kent, ix. 74–84.

Although a parliamentary list of 1708 described him, somewhat surprisingly given his Catholic background, as a Whig, Teynham was unable to take the Test and appears to have been politically inactive at that time. One possible explanation for attaching a Whig label to him may have been his involvement in the disputes over oyster fishing in the Medway area, which pitched him against the interest of the Herbert family, headed by Katherine Herbert, the widowed daughter of Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds. TNA, C9/460/159.

In 1716 Teynham conformed to the Church of England. His conversion may well have been because of the anti-Catholic legislation spawned by the Jacobite invasion of 1715 and it is noticeable that a number of other prominent Catholics in Kent and Sussex, including his kinsman Strangford, also took the decision to conform at the same time. Flying Post, 13–15 Mar. 1716. Just how genuine his conversion was remains a matter for speculation. Teynham’s children remained resolutely Catholic and the two marriages that he contracted after his conversion were both to members of prominent Catholic families. Shortly after his death his widow was sued for custody of her son by her previous marriage. The entire case centred on fears that even though he was being brought up as a Protestant according to his father’s wishes, if left with his mother he would imbibe ‘romish principles’. Add. 36147, ff. 206–9. As further evidence that Teynham was far from distancing himself from his origins, he was closely involved in the affairs of his Catholic cousin Henry Browne, 5th Viscount Montagu. W. Suss. RO, SAS-BA/170, 173, 174. He also continued to be linked to his Catholic neighbours in Kent, holding stock valued at £20,000 on their behalf in the South Sea Company (whether the £20,000 represents a market value or the face value of stock is not clear). Kent HLC (CKS), U498/A4. Teynham himself had held stock in the South Sea Company since at least 1712. Add. 34195, ff. 140–89.

Teynham eventually took his seat in the House towards the end of the 1715–16 session and was present on just over half of the subsequent sitting days. Details of his post-1715 career will be found in the next phase of this work. On 16 May 1723 Teynham shot and killed himself in his house in the Haymarket. The reason for his suicide is not clear, though the Daily Post noted that he had been ‘unfortunately disordered in his senses some days before’ and the coroner’s inquest brought in a verdict of ‘lunacy’. Daily Post, 17 May 1723. Beyond these it is difficult to establish an obvious reason for his actions. He and his third wife, who was believed to be pregnant at the time of his death, had spent lavishly on alterations to their home at Lynsted where they are said to have entertained extensively, but they had apparently survived the crisis caused by the bursting of the South Sea Bubble. E. Selby, Teynham Manor and Hundred 798–1935, p. 67. Nor is there any indication that Teynham had anything to fear from revelations about the Atterbury Plot, named after Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester. On the contrary the pattern of his proxies and the rewards bestowed by the court indicate that he was a trusted supporter of the administration. He died intestate; in the course of subsequent litigation his estate was valued at £30,000 (rather than the £130,000 reported by the Daily Journal in the days immediately following his death). C11/306/20; Daily Journal, 22 May 1723. He was succeeded by his son Philip Roper^† as 9th Baron Teynham. His widow married, as her third husband, Robert Moore.