ROPER, Christopher (1562-1622)

Although raised as a Catholic, Roper benefited from his father’s court connections, being admitted to the Inner Temple in 1580 free of charge, at the request of the leading government minister Sir Christopher Hatton^‡.12 PROB 11/139, f, 422; CITR, i. 309; E.S. Brooks, Sir Christopher Hatton, 200. Ten years later he settled in Herefordshire, following his marriage into a prominent local Catholic family. In 1593 his ‘wilful’ recusancy led the Privy Council to order his arrest. He was formally indicted for recusancy in 1599, and had property distrained, but he confidently appealed to his father’s patron, Secretary of State Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), insisting that his treatment was illegal.13 M. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern Eng. 327; APC, 1592-3, pp. 45-6; HMC Hatfield, ix. 379. In the following January, he was ordered to contribute towards the cost of the Irish wars, but failed to do so, despite his assessment being halved on the orders of Lord Treasurer Buckhurst (Thomas Sackville^*, later 1st earl of Dorset). The Privy Council again intervened, and this time Roper buckled under the pressure, for a time conforming to the Church of England. In the wake of this change of heart he sought to enter Cecil’s service, but apparently without success.14 APC, 1599-1600, pp. 309-11; Hatfield House, CP 82/42.

Roper was knighted at Whitehall in July 1603, shortly before James I’s coronation, but his persistent Catholic leanings ensured that the government continued to view him with suspicion. In 1606, applying to Salisbury for permission to have his eldest son John Roper^* (later 3rd Lord Teynham) educated ‘in languages’, presumably abroad, Roper promised ‘to take all possible care for giving the least offence’, either to the earl or the government.15 Shaw, ii. 115; Hatfield House, CP 82/42. Despite these assurances, in 1609 Roper again provoked the Privy Council by obstructing a search for Jesuits at a house near Enfield, Middlesex which he was renting from the Catholic peer Lord William Howard. Unsurprisingly, he was prosecuted for recusancy later that year, with further convictions in 1613 and 1614.16 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 63-4; Jacobean Recusant Rolls for Mdx. 53-4, 71. Undeterred by this harassment, in 1612 he requested to compound in lieu of taking the oath of allegiance, shortly after his sister, Elizabeth Vaux, was imprisoned for refusing the oath. If anything, she was even more recalcitrant, and in March 1618 Roper was bound over for her good behaviour when she again offended the government.17 Lansd. 153, f. 52v; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 337; APC, 1618-19, p. 57.

In August 1618 Roper succeeded to the barony of Teynham and an estate comprising some 5,000 acres in Kent. Nevertheless, he remained on the margins of local society, his record of recusancy ensuring his omission from the county’s bench.18 C142/109/86; 142/376/122; P. Clark, Eng. Provincial Soc. 325. Indeed, his household again came under investigation the following year after one of his wife’s servants allegedly asserted that all English Protestants should be hanged.19 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 35. Predictably, Teynham dragged his heels when requested in 1620 to contribute towards the anti-Catholic war in the Palatinate, eventually paying £50 only after repeated reminders from the Privy Council.20 SP14/117/2; 14/118/40, 57; APC, 1619-21, p. 335. His behaviour apparently antagonized some of his neighbours, for in February 1621 he wrote to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, requesting him to procure a letter of crown protection to stop him being presented for recusancy.21 HMC 4th Rep. 305.

Teynham took his seat in the Lords just once during the 1621 Parliament, on 16 Feb., and with uncharacteristic tact awarded his proxy to Buckingham. In his absence the upper House, on 30 Apr., heard a petition from north Kent fishermen complaining that Teynham was trying to deprive them of access to their customary fishing grounds. Reportedly the baron had been granted exclusive rights to the disputed areas, though the details of his patent are not known. Despite Buckingham arguing that this dispute would be better dealt with in another court, the Lords appointed a committee to hear the arguments, but no resolution was reached.22 LJ, iii. 4b, 101b-2a, 129a; LD 1621, p. 41.

In January 1622 Teynham finally achieved local office, being named as a Kent subsidy commissioner. This appointment presumably reflected the king’s desire to promote men supportive of the Spanish Match, in the face of opposition from the House of Commons just weeks earlier. Although still in ‘reasonable bodily health’, he made his will on 22 Mar. that year, ambiguously asserting his membership of the ‘catholic, apostolic and universal Church’, a formulation acceptable to Anglicans but with popish overtones. As he acknowledged, the bulk of his property was already entailed, and, apart from assigning £1,000 each to his two youngest daughters to augment their dowries, he used the will primarily to distribute his personal effects. To his wife Katharine he left his ‘books of devotion’, to be distinguished from the ‘books of divinity and history’ bequeathed to his younger son William. Teynham’s wealth was also demonstrated by a ‘jewel or tablet of gold’ that he normally wore, a sapphire ring, and a ‘best gold girdle’.23 PROB 11/139, ff. 422-4v. Presumably Teynham fell ill shortly afterwards, for he died at his seat of Lynsted Lodge barely three weeks later. He was buried in his family chapel at Lynsted church, where his widow erected a ‘handsome tomb of marble’ designed by the distinguished mason Epiphanius Evesham, another member of the Herefordshire recusant community. Teynham’s barony descended to his eldest son John.24 C142/395/118; Vallance, 159; Hasted, Kent, vi. 576-7; M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830, pp. 56-7.