losing the command of his fort at Tilbury and all his arrears. He produced certificates from various friends of the late king as to his constant willingness to serve them and preserve to them their liberties and estates.
Temple was not executed, but remained in confinement in the Tower for some years, and was in the Old Castle in Jersey in 1668. It is not known where or when he died. By his wife Mary he had five sons and at least one daughter, Mary.
Chillingworth (Cheynell, Chillingworthi Novissima) speaks of Temple as 'a man that hath his head full of stratagems, his heart full of piety and valour, and his hand as full of success as it is of dexterity.' On the other hand, Winstanley (Loyal Martyrology, p. 141) pronounces him ' not so much famous for his valour as his villainy, being remarkable for nothing but this horrible business of the king's murther, for which he came into the pack to have a share in the spoyle.'
Letters from Temple to Sir Thomas Barrington on military matters, written in July and August 1643, have been printed by the historical manuscripts commission (App. 7th Rep. pp. 554, 461).[Nichols's Leicestershire, iv. 960; Lipscomb's Buckinghamshire, iii. 35; Berry's County Genealogies (Sussex); Metcalfe's Book of Knights, p. 152; Official Return of M.P.s, i. 472, 494; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1623-60 passim; Nalson's Trial of Charles I; Peacock's Army Lists, p. 50; Masson's Milton, ii. 445, v. 454, vi. 43; Trial of the Regicides, pp. 29, 266-7, 271, 276; Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. pp. 101, 155-6; Sussex Archaeological Society's Coll. v. 54, 56, 58, 154; Commons' Journals, v. 572, vi. 238, viii. 65, 139; Lords' Journals, vii. 226, xi. 52, 66; Cal. of Comm. for Comp. pp. 1245. 2370-1; Kennett's Reg. pp. 179, 238; Addit. MS. 6356, f. 45 (par. reg. of Etchingham).]
TEMPLE, Sir JOHN (1600–1677), master of the rolls in Ireland, eldest son of Sir William Temple (1555–1627) [q. v.], provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and Martha, daughter of Robert Harrison of Derbyshire, was born in Ireland in 1600. After receiving his education at Trinity College, Dublin, he spent some time travelling abroad, and on his return entered the personal service of Charles I. He obtained livery of his inheritance on 5 Jan. 1628, and was shortly afterwards knighted. Returning to Ireland, he was on 31 Jan. 1640 created master of the rolls there (patent 20 Feb.) in succession to Sir Christopher Wandesford [q. v.] (Smyth, Law Officers of Ireland, p. 67) and admitted a privy councillor. When the rebellion broke out in October 1641 he was of the greatest service to government in provisioning the city (Carte, Life of Ormond, i. 171). On 23 July 1642 he was returned M.P. for co. Meath, being described as of Ballycrath, co. Carlow (Official Return of M.P.s, Ireland, pt. ii. p. 627). In the struggle between the crown and the parliament his inclinations drew him to the side of the latter, and, in consequence of the vehement resistance he offered to the cessation, he was in August 1643 suspended from his office by the lords justices Borlase and Tichborne, acting on instructions from Charles, and, with Sir W. Parsons, Sir A. Loftus, and Sir R. Meredith, committed a close prisoner to the castle. He was specially charged with having in May and June written two scandalous letters against the king, which had been used to asperse his majesty as favouring the rebels (Carte, Life of Ormonde, i. 441–443). His imprisonment lasted nearly a year, when he was exchanged. In compensation for what was regarded as his harsh treatment, he was provided in 1646 with a seat in the English House of Commons as a ‘recruiter’ for Chichester, receiving at the same time its special thanks for the services he had rendered to the English interest in Ireland at the beginning of the rebellion.
That year Temple published his ‘Irish Rebellion; or an history of the beginning and first progresse of the generall rebellion raised within the kingdom of Ireland upon the … 23 Oct. 1641. Together with the barbarous cruelties and bloody massacres which ensued thereupon,’ in 2 pts. 4to. The book made an immediate and great sensation. As the production of a professed eye-witness and of one whose position entitled him to speak with authority, its statements were received with unquestioning confidence, and did much to inflame popular indignation in England against the Irish, and to justify the severe treatment afterwards measured out to them by Cromwell. But the calmer judgment of posterity has seen reason to doubt the veracity of many of its statements, and, though still occasionally appealed to as an authority, its position is rather that of a partisan pamphlet than of an historical treatise (Lecky, Hist. of Engl. ii. 148–150; Hickson, Irish Massacres, vol. i. introd. p. 140). A new edition appeared in London in 1674, much to the annoyance of government, but, on being questioned by the lord-lieutenant (the Earl of Essex) on the subject, Temple disclaimed having had any share in its reissue, saying that ‘whoever printed it did it without his knowledge’ (Essex, Letters, p. 2). So highly, indeed, were the Irish incensed against it that one of the first resolutions of the parliament of 1689 was to