Open main menu

MARTEN, HENRY or HARRY (1602–1680), regicide, elder son of Sir Henry Marten [q. v.] by his first wife, was born at Oxford in 1602 (Wood, Athenæ Oxon' iii. 1237). After being ' instructed in grammar learning in Oxon, he became a gentleman-commoner of University College,' matriculating on 31 Oct. 1617 (Wood; Clark, Register of the University of Oxford, ii. 364). He obtained the degree of B.A. in 1619, was admitted to Gray's Inn on 10 Aug. 1618, and then travelled for some time in France (Foster, Gray's Inn Register, p. 142). 'At his return, his father found out a rich wife for him, whom he married, something unwillingly ' (Aubrey). Her name was Margaret, widow of William Staunton (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1636-7, p. 274). The marriage proved unhappy. ' He was a great lover of pretty girls, to whom he was so liberal that he spent the greatest part of his estate' (Aubrey). As early as 1639 he is described as costing his father 1,000l. per annum (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1638-9, p. 590). In 1639 Marten made his first appearance in politics by declining to contribute to the general loan raised for the Scottish war (Rushworth, iii. 912). This act made him popular, and in April 1640, and again in the following November, he was returned to parliament as one of the members for Berkshire. According to Aubrey, Marten's zeal for the popular cause was further stimulated by an insult which he had received from the king, who publicly termed him 'an ugly rascal' and a 'whore-master,' and ordered him to be turned out of Hyde Park. In parliament he was from the first conspicuous as one of the most extreme members of the popular party. To his friend Hyde Marten privately confessed that he thought some of the popular leaders knaves, 'and that when they had done as much as they intended to do, they should be used as they had used others. The other pressed him then to say what he desired ; to which, after a little pause, he very roundly answered, "I do not think one man wise enough to govern us all" ' (Clarendon, Life, i. § 91). Marten showed great zeal against Strafford, and was one of the spokesmen of the section eager to proceed against the earl by bill of attainder instead of impeachment (Sanford, Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion, pp. 337, 339, 341). He also delivered speeches in favour of the protestation, and in support of the theory that the ordinances of parliament were valid without the king's assent (Verney, Notes of the Long Parliament, pp. 67, 162; Gardiner, History of England, ix. 301 , 353). When the committee of safety was constituted, Marten was one of the ten commoners appointed, and reported to parliament the resolution of the committee, asserting that the king intended to levy war against the parliament, and recommending the raising of an army of ten thousand men (Sanford, pp. 496, 497). Charles, in his declaration of 12 Aug. 1642, complained that 'it hath been publicly said by Marten that our office is forfeitable, and that the happiness of the kingdom doth not depend upon us, nor any of the regal branches of that stock.' He went on to demand that Marten should be delivered up to stand his trial for high treason, and excepted him from pardon Husbands, Votes and Ordinances, 4to, 1643, p. 660).

When war broke out Marten subscribed 1,200l. to the parliamentary cause, and undertook to raise a regiment of horse. Parliament appointed him governor of Reading, which he evacuated with some haste when the king's army came to Oxford (Clarendon, Rebellion, vi. § 125). The chief theatre of his exploits was the House of Commons. Though a member of the committee of safety himself, he was a severe critic of its actions, and shared the jealousy with which the house regarded the authority the committee claimed. 'A pint pot,' once observed Marten, 'could not hold a pottle of liquor, nor could they be capable to despatch so much business as was committed to them' (Sanford, p. 545). D'Ewes describes him as one ' that used to snarl at everybody,' and couples him with Pym and the ' fiery spirits who, accounting their own condition desperate, did not care how they hazarded the whole kingdom to save themselves ' (ib. pp. 532, 540). On 27 Sept. 1642 he attacked William Russell, fifth earl of Bedford, for his not pursuing William Seymour, marquis of Hertford, and on 5 Dec. criticised with equal severity the slowness of his movements. In April 1644 he became involved in a quarrel with Algernon Percy, teuth earl of Northumberland [q. v.], one of the commissioners at the Oxford treaty with the king. Suspecting Northumberland's fidelity to the parliamentary cause, he opened a letter from Northberland to his wife, for which act Northumberland, meeting Marten at a conference in the Painted Chamber, gave him several blows with his cane. Each house took up the cause of its member, and complained of a breach of privilege, but the quarrel was privately made up (ib. p. 546 ; Mercurius Aulicus, 20 April; Lords' Journals, vi. 11; Commons' Journals, iii. 51 ). Marten showed as little respect to the House of Lords in general as to individual members of it, and that assembly was greatly indignant at the words used by Marten concerning their delay to pass the ordinance for sequestering the estates of royalists (Lords' Journals, v. 696).

On questions concerning the dealings of the parliament with the King Marten was equally outspoken. At the close of the Oxford treaty, urging the rejection of the king's messages, he bluntly said : 'Let us not trouble ourselves to send away an answer, but rather answer them with scorn, as being unworthy of our further regard' (Gardiner, Great Civil War, i. 126). The House of Lords wished to respect the king's private property, but Marten seized his horses and refused to return them, alleging that he saw no reason why the king's horses should not be taken as well as his ships (Lords' Journals, vi. 26, 28 ; Mercurius Aulicus, 8 May l^S). He was in his element as a member of the committee for destroying the superstitious images in the Queen's Chapel at Somerset House, and is said to have seized the regalia in Westminster Abbey, declaring that 'there would be no further use of these toys and trifles' (Commons' Journals, iii. 24; Heylyn, History of the Presbyterians, p. 452, ed. 1672; Sanderson, Life of Charles I, p. 623; Mercurius Aulicus, 3 April 1643). His scandalous utterances about the king are frequently commented upon in the royalist newspaper (ib. 26 May, 10 July 1643). On 16 Aug. 1643, defending a pamphlet which proposed the king's deposition, Marten said that he saw no reason to condemn the author, and that 'it were better one family should be destroyed than many.' Pressed to explain himself, he boldly answered that he meant the king and his children; on which he was expelled from the house and committed to the Tower (ib. 19 Aug. 1643 ; Gardiner, Great Civil War, i. 238). He was discharged from his imprisonment on 2 Sept., but not readmitted to parliament till 1643 (Commons' Journals, iii. 226).

Debarred from politics, Marten now returned to military life. By this time his regiment, which had often been complained of for its want of discipline, had been drafted into the armies of Essex and Waller (ib. iii. 124, 195, 212). On 22 May 1644, however, the commons recommended him to Essex to be governor of Aylesbury. In that capacity he did good service during the rest of the war. He also acted as commander-in-chief (under Colonel Dalbier) of the infantry employed in the siege of Dennington Castle during the winter of 1645-6 (ib. iii. 503, iv. 330 ; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1644-7, pp. 204, 212).

On 6 Jan. 1646 the House of Commons rescinded the vote for Marten's expulsion, and readmitted him to sit (Commons' Journals, iv. 897 ; cf. Somers Tracts, vi. 588). He resumed at once his old position as leader of the extreme party, which had now considerably increased in numbers, and outside the parliament was closely associated with the levellers. To the Scots and the presbyterians he gave great offence by a pamphlet refuting the claims of the Scots to dictate the terms of the parliament's agreement with the king, incidentally comparing the covenant to 'an almanac of the last year.' 'Our condition,' he concluded, 'would be lower and more contemptible if we should suffer you to have your will of us in this particular, than if we had let the king have his. A king is but one master, and therefore likely to sit lighter upon our shoulders than a whole kingdom ; and if he should grow so heavy as cannot well be borne, he may be sooner gotten off than they' (The Independency of England endeavoured to be maintained, 4to, 1647). Equally obnoxious to them was his proposal that the establishment of presbyterianism should be coupled with toleration for even catholics (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 212). On the question of the treatment of the king Marten was as outspoken as before his expulsion. In April 1647, when letters were read in the house from the parliament's commissioners desiring directions how to deal with the crowds who flocked to be cured by the king's touch, Marten scornfully remarked that he knew not but the parliament's great seal might do it as well it there were an ordinance for it. When it was moved to consider the question of the propositions to be sent to the king, he replied that the man to whom the said propositions were to be sent 'ought rather to come to the bar himself than be sent to any more' (Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii. App. p. xxxvii). He followed up this suggestion by proposing a motion that no further addresses should be made to Charles, but it was rejected by 84 to 34 votes (22 Sept. 1647; Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 201). But on 3 Jan. 1648 the house came round to Marten's views, and a similar motion was passed by 141 to 91 votes.

Marten sided with the army in their quarrel with the parliament, and signed the engagement of 4 Aug. 1647, promising to stand by them in supporting the freedom of the parliament against the dictation of the London mob (Rushworth, vii. 754). His readiness to attack abuses of all kinds and the straight-forwardness of his political career had gained him great popularity. 'The true lovers of their country in England,' said a member of parliament to John Lilburne [q. v.], 'were more beholden to Mr. Henry Marten for his sincerity, uprightness, boldness, and gallantry, than to half, if not all, of those that are called conscientious men in the house.' Such, at all events, was the belief of the levellers, with whom, during 1647, 1648, and the first half of 1649, Marten was intimately connected, lie was chairman of the committee appointed to consider Lilburne's imprisonment, and to him, in May 1647, Lilburne addressed a pamphlet, complaining that his negligence or wilful delay had prevented the presentation of their report (Rash Oaths Unwarrantable, 4to, 1647, p. 2). Other letters of the same nature followed, but in September, when the report was actually brought in, the house, in spite of Marten's efforts, referred it back to the committee (A Copy of a Letter written to Col. Henry Marten by John Lilburne, 20 July 1 647 ; Two Letters writ by Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne, prerogative prisoner in the Tower, to Col. Henry Marten upon the 1 3 and 5 September, 1647 ; The Additional Plea of Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne, 28 Oct. 1547, p. 22).

Lilburne was now convinced that Cromwell, not Marten, was to blame, and Cromwell's negotiations with the king had also roused Marten's suspicions. If Lilburne's statement may be believed, Marten was so convinced of Cromwell's treachery, that he resolved to emulate Felton, 'and for that end provided and charged a pistol, and took a dagger in his pocket, that if the one did not, the other should despatch him.' An accident prevented the first attempt to fulfil this design, but when Cromwell heard of Marten's armament, he was so terrified that he immediately changed his policy and supported the vote of ' No Addresses ' (A Declaration of some of the Proceedings of Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne, 4 to, 1648, n. 15). Much more probable is the report that Marten, like Rainsboro ugh, talked of impeaching Cromwell (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 252). In February 1648 Cromwell is said to have desired a meeting with Marten in order to a reconciliation, but that they parted ' much more enemies than they met;' nor were Marten's suspicions removed till some months later (ib. pp. 295, 327 ). During the second civil war Marten, thinking, after the readmission of the impeached presbyterian leaders, that his further presence in parliament was useless, left the house and commenced raising a regiment of horse in Berkshire. He had no legal authority to do so, and his intention was to oppose the parliament by arms in the event of their concluding to restore Charles I. A commission given by him to one of his captains is couched in the following terms : ' By virtue of that right which I was born to as an Englishman, and in pursuance of that duty which I owe my said country, I have resolved to raise and conduct a regiment of harquebusiers on horseback, on the behalf of the people of England, for the recovery of their freedom, and for common justice against tyranny and oppression' (Clarke MSS.) The regiment was mounted by the simple process of stopping travellers on the highway, or breaking into the stables of country gentlemen. In response to loud complaints, parliament ordered the forces of the adjacent counties, under the command of Major Richard Fincher, to disperse Marten's adherents, and he was driven to remove to Leicestershire, and ultimately to join Cromwell in the north (Mercurius Pragmaticus, 22-9 Aug. 1648 ; Tanner MSS. lvii. 197 ; Portland MSS. i. 495; Grey, Examination of Neat's Puritans, vol. iii. App. p. 67 ; Commons 1 Journals, v. 676).

Marten returned to his place in parliament, in co npany' with Cromwell, on 7 Dec, after Pride's Purge, and took part in the meetings at Windsor and Whitehall, in which Lilburne and his committee drew up the draft ' Agreement of the People,' which was afterwards submitted to the council of war (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 535, 540; Lilburne, Legal Fundamental Liberties, 1648, p. 88; Foundations of Freedom, or an Agreement of the People, 1648). In the preparations of parliament for bringing the king to trial Marten was extremely active (Commons' Journals, vi. 96, 103, 107, 110). He was appointed one of the king's judges, sat with great regularity, and signed the death-warrant. A witness at the trial of the regicides describes Marten, when the judges were endeavouring to find an answer to give the king in case he should demand by what authority they sat, as supplying them with the formula: 'In the name of the Commons in Parliament assembled, and all the good people of England.' The familiar story of Marten and Cromwell inking each other's faces as the king's death-warrant was being signed rests on the authority of Marten's servant, Ewer (Trial of the Regicides, 4to, 1660, pp. 247-8). At the Restoration Marten wrote a defence of the king's execution, in the form of a letter to a friend, but while he justified the act itself, he regretted its consequences. 'Had I suspected,' he said, 'that the axe which took off the king's head should have been made a stirrup for our first false general, I should sooner have consented to my own death than his' (Harry Marten, Familiar Epistles, p. 3).

No man was more prominent in the proceedings for the establishment of the republic. The device and the legend on the new great seal were, according to Whitelocke, 'for the most part the fancy of Mr. Henry Marten, more particularly the inscriptions' (Memorials; Commons' Journals, vi. 115). He was charged with the preparation of the act for taking down the arms of the late king and demolishing his public statues. The inscription 'Exit Tyrannus Regum ultimus,' &c, by which the statues were to be replaced is said to have been his composition (ib. vi. 142, 274; Forster, British Statesmen, p. 519). He was one of the tellers in the division on the abolition of the House of Lords, and a member of the committee appointed to prepare the act for that purpose (Commons' Journals, vi. 132). On 14 Feb. 1649 parliament elected him a member of the council of state, thirteenth on the list of those chosen. On 3 July they further voted that lands to the value of 1,000l. a year should be settled upon him as compensation for his disbursements, arrears of pay, and services to the state. The manors of Hartington and Leominster were accordingly settled upon him by an ordinance of parliament, 28 Sept. 1649 (ib. vi. 141, 196,248, 300). By another vote on 2 Feb. 1649 parliament ordered that Marten's regiment of horse should be completed and taken on to the regular establishment of the army, but this intention was not carried out (ib. vi. 129; Carte, Original Letters, 1739, i. 273). These favours were no doubt largely dictated by the desire of the government to conciliate the levellers through Marten. As one of the pamphleteers of that party observes: 'When the king was to come to the block and a bloody High Court of Injustice and a Council of State erected, then what a white boy was Col. Marten! A regiment of horse was voted for him by the House to keep the pretty baby at play with that fine tantarara tantara, while their work was over' (Overton, Defiance, 1649, p. 7). After the levellers had been suppressed there was no inducement to continue Marten's regiment, and some risk in doing so. It does not appear that Marten countenanced the attacks made by Lilburne and his associates on the new government. He endeavoured rather to mediate between them, twice obtained Lilburne's release from imprisonment, and was instrumental in procuring the payment of his arrears (Commons' Journals, vi. 441; Lilburne, A Preparative War Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haselrig, 1649, p. 40: The Trial of Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne, by Theodorus Varax, 1649, p. 143).

Marten was re-elected a member of the second council of state of the Commonwealth, and sat also in the fourth, but was omitted in the third and fifth. His influence was greater in the debates of the parliament than in the deliberations of the council. 'His speeches in the House,' says Aubrey, 'were not long, but wondrous poignant, pertinent, and witty. He was exceedingly happy in apt instances; he alone hath sometimes turned the whole House' (Letters from the Bodleian, ii. 436). His jests are said to have saved the lives of Judge Jenkins [see Jenkins, David] and Sir William D'Avenant [q. v.] when parliament would have had them sentenced to death (ib. ii. 308; Somers Tracts, ed. Scott, v. 129; Hist MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. iv. 389). Algernon Sydney describes the happy manner in which Marten allayed a wrangle about the oath to be taken by the council of state (Sydney Papers, ed. Blencowe, p. 238). In legislation Marten's most important work was an act for the relief of poor prisoners for debt (Commons' Journals, vi. 262, 270, 275, 289; Scoble, Collection of Acts, fol. 1658, pt. ii. p. 87). As an administrator he never earned any fame, nor did he show any sign of constructive statesmanship. His influence, therefore, which had been at its height in 1649, perceptibly declined during the next few years.

From the first foundation of the Commonwealth Marten's relations with Cromwell, if the newspapers can be trusted, were somewhat hostile, and as his suspicions of Cromwell's ambition increased they found expression in his speeches (Walker, History of Independency, ii. 150; Wood, Athenæ, iii. 1240; Letters from the Bodleian Library, ii. 436 ; Mercurius Pragmaticus, 27 Feb.-5 March 1649). A quarrel between Bradshaw and Marten is also recorded (Carte, Original Letters, i. 443). Most of his colleagues were offended by Marten's moral irregularities. At a masque given by the Spanish ambassador great scandal was caused by his giving 'the chief place and respect' to Marten's mistress, who was 'finer and more bejewelled' than any lady present (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. p. 192)' Whatever support he had once had in the army he had lost by making himself the mouthpiece of the party who opposed the dissolution of the parliament, and publicly declaring that the young republic, like the infant Moses, would be best brought up by the parent who had given it birth (Newsletter, 27 Feb. 1650 ; Clarendon MSS. ; cf. History of the Rebellion, xiv. 6). Moreover the army as early as 1647 had publicly demanded 'that such men, and such men only, might be preferred to the great power and trust of the Commonwealth as are approved at least for moral righteousness.' Hence when Cromwell broke up the Long parliament and the army seized power Marten inevitably disappeared from political life. In Cromwell's brief harangue to the house he pointedly reproached it with the immorality of some of its members, and is said to have applied to Marten the same contumelious epithet which Charles I had once employed (Whitelocke, Memorials, iv. 5 ; Newsletter, 29 April 1663 ; Clarendon MSS.)

Marten was not a member of any of the parliaments called during the protectorate. Now that his immunities in that capacity had ended, his creditors began to be importunate, and in January 1655 he was outlawed. His letters during 1656 and 1657 are dated from 'The Rules in Southwark,' his debts having apparently brought him to the King's Bench prison (Hist. MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. iv. 392, 898).

When the Long parliament was restored, in May 1659, Marten resumed his seat in that body. The rumour ran that he was fetched from his prison in order to make up a quorum (England's Confusion, 4to, 1659, p. 10; Heath, Chronicle, p. 746). On the first day of its meeting Marten was selected to draft a letter to the absent members, to draw up a declaration to the people, and, as a member of the committee, to consider the administration of justice (Commons' Journals, vii. 645). But he played no important part in the proceedings of the house, and was not one of the twenty-one members of parliament elected to form the council of state on 13 May 1659. However, when the Rump was again restored, after its interruption by Lambert, a fresh council was chosen, of which Marten was a member, 31 Dec. 1659 (ib. vii. 800). He was naturally omitted from the presbyterian council chosen on 23 Feb. 1660. Marten was sufficiently clear-sighted to perceive the probable result of Monck's policy, and bold enough to point out the difference between his professions and his actions, which he illustrated in his usual way by an anecdote (Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1698, ii. 810, 831; Guizot, Life of Monck, trans, by Wortley, p. 243).

On the return of Charles II he made no attempt to fly, and gave himself up on 20 June 1660, in obedience to the king's proclamation of 6 June summoning the regicides to surrender, 'under pain of being excepted from any pardon or indemnity for their respective lives and estates.' The commons excepted him from the act of indemnity, but not capitally, in consequence of his surrender. The lords resolved that all the king's judges should be absolutely excepted, both for life and estate. In the act as finally passed, 29 Aug., Marten and eighteen other regicides were excepted, with a saving clause stating that in consequence of their surrender under the proclamation, in case they were attainted for their part in the king's death, their execution should be suspended until it should be ordered by a special act of parliament for the purpose. Marten was thus left very uncertain as to his ultimate fate. With his usual humour he observed that 'since he had never obeyed any royal proclamation before, he hoped that he should not be hanged for taking the king's word now' (Forster, iv. 356 In the House of Commons Lord Falkland pleaded for his life, using Martin's own jest about D'Avenant as an argument in his favour (Aubrey, pp. 308, 435). What saved him was probably the fact that in his own days of power he had frequently intervened on behalf of endangered royalists. His trial took place at the Old Bailey on 16 Oct. 1660. After claiming that he was not excluded from the Act of Indemnity, on the ground that his name was 'Harry Marten,' and not 'Henry Martyn,' as the act had it, he pleaded 'not guilty.' In his defence he first objected to the word 'maliciously' used in the indictment, and then argued that he was justified by the authority of parliament and the statute of Henry VII concerning obedience to a de facto government. He admitted his part in the king's death. 'I am sorry to see so little repentance,' observed the solicitor-general.' If it were possible,' replied Marten, 'for that blood to be in the body again, and every drop that was shed in the late wars, I could wish it with all my heart.' This qualified expression of regret was far from satisfying the court, and the chief justice in his charge to the jury commented on his lack of proper penitence, adding, 'I hope in charity he meant better than his words were.' Marten concluded his defence by professing his resolution to submit peaceably to the government for the future, if the king was pleased to spare his life. 'I think,' he said, 'his majesty that now is, is king upon the best title under heaven, for he was called in by the representative body of England.' At this implied denial of the king's hereditary claim the solicitor-general again protested. Marten's conduct throughout was marked by courage and self-possession.

The jury convicted Marten, but, as had been agreed, execution was suspended, and he was imprisoned. In the second parliament of Charles U, which met in May 1661, a bill for executing' the nineteen regicides who had been respited passed the House of Commons. While it was under discussion in the House of Lords Marten and his companions were fetched from their prisons to be examined. To the question what he could say for himself why the act for his execution should not pass (7 Feb. 1601) Marten replied by pleading his surrender in obedience to the king's proclamation. 'That honourable House of Commons, that he did so idolise, had given him up to death, and now,' said Marten, 'this honourable House of Peers, which he had so much opposed, especially in their power of judicature, was made the sanctuary for him to fly to for his life' (Lords' Journals, xi. 380). The lords spared their old enemy, and the bill was dropped. The remainder of Marten's life was passed in prison. In July 1662 he was removed from the Tower and transferred to the charge of William, first baron Widdrington, at Berwick. In May 1065 he was removed to Windsor and placed under the custody of John, baron (afterwards viscount) Mordaunt (d. 1675) [q. v.], but proving an 'eyesore to his majesty,' was finally sent away to Chepstow Castle. At Chepstow, on 9 Sept. 1680, he died (Cal. State Papers, Dom 1661-2 p. 446, 1665 p. 374, 1607 p. 465).

Marten was originally buried in the chancel of Chepstow Church, but a subsequent incumbent, thinking the site too sacred for a regicide, moved him into the body of the church. Archdeacon Coxe [see Coxe, William, 1747-1828], in his 'Historical Tour in Monmouthshire,' collected some traditional anecdotes about Marten's life in prison. The same work contains a view of the tower in which Marten was confined, a facsimile of the inscription on his tombstone, and a portrait of him in the possession of the neighbouring family of Lewis of St. Pierre. His epitaph, 'by way of acrostic on himself,' is also printed by Wood (Athenæ, iii. 1242). Southey visited Marten's prison, and wrote a sonnet on him, which Canning parodied and applied to Mrs. Brownrigg (Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin, ed. Edmonds ). Marten's character is very favourably judged by Aubrey in the notes which be supplied to Anthony à Wood. 'He was a great and faithful lover of his country . . . not at all covetous . . . not at all arrogant . . . a great cultor of justice, and did always in the house take the side of the oppressed' (Letters from the Bodleian Library, iii. 435). Burnet could see nothing but Marten's vices (Own Time, ed. 1833, i. 291 ). Forster's 'Life of Marten,' published in 1837, is an uncritical panegyric. Carlyle characterises him, with more justice : 'A right hard-headed, stout-hearted little man, full of sharp fire and cheerful light ; sworn foe of cant in all its figures; an indomitable little Roman pagan if no better' (Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, ed. 1871, iii. 168). He was too much of the 'Roman pagan ' to succeed as a leader of puritans.

By his wife Margaret, widow of William Staunton, Marten had a daughter Mary, who married Thomas Parker, afterwards the last Lord Morley and Monteagle [q. v.] He had also a son Henry, who seems to nave died young, and three other daughters, Jane, Anne, and Frances (Hist MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. iv. 398-9 ; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1636-7, p. 275 ; Le Neve, Pedigrees of Knights, p. 372).

Marten published one speech and several pamphlets: 1. 'A Speech delivered at the Common Hall in London, 28 July 1643, concerning Sir William Waller,' &c, 4to, 1643. 2. 'A Corrector of the Answerer to the Speech out of doors, justifying the worthy Speech of Mr. Thomas Chaloner . . . Edinburgh, as truly printed by Evan Tyler, printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, as were the Scottish papers, anno 1646,' 4to, n.d. This, which was printed in London in 1646, is anonymous. The Bodleian copy is noted by Barlow as 'supposed to be writ by Mr. H. Martin,' and the style justifies the supposition. 3. 'The Independency of England endeavoured to be maintained against the Claims of the Scots Commissioners,' 4to, 1647. This, which is Marten's best pam phlet, is reprinted in vol. xvii. of the 'Old Parliamentary History,' p. 51. Mr. Forster praises it as containing passages which, 'for closeness of reasoning, familiar wit of illustration, and conciseness of style,' are 'quite worthy of Swift' (British Statesmen, iv. 272). 4. 'The Parliament's Proceedings justified in declining a Personal Treaty with the King,' 4to, 1648. 6. 'A Word to Mr. William Prynne, Esq., and two for the Parliament and Army, reproving the one and justifying the other in their late Proceedings, 4to,' 1649. 6. There is attributed to him also 'Mr. Henry Marten his Speech in the House of Commons before his departure thence, 8 June 1648,' 4to, 1648. This, as Wood remarks in a note on the copy in the Bodleian Library, is 'a piece of roguery fathered upon him.' Fragments of several unfinished pamphlets by Marten are among the Marten MSS. in the possession of Captain Loder-Symonds, and it is probable that he published others anonymously (Hist MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. iv. 400). The manuscript notes include Marten's comments on Walter's 'History of Independency,' Harrington's 'Oceana,' and other works. Marten was also the author of an epitaph on his mother, buried in Longworth Church, Berkshire, and some verses on the death of his nephew Charles Edmonds (Ashmole, Antiquities of Berkshire, i. 162; Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Rep. p. 81). In 1662 there was published a quarto pamphlet entitled 'Henry Marten's Familiar Letters to his Lady of Delight,' published by 'Edmundus de Speciosa Villa,' i.e. Edmund Gayton [q. v.], and printed at Oxford. A second edition was printed at London in 1685. This contains some genuine letters from Marten to his mistress, Mary Ward, together with a letter in justification of his share in the king's death. Gayton added a preface, some mock heroic compositions of his own, and notes.

[Lives of Marten are contained in Wood's Athens Oxon ed. Bliss, iii. 1237, Noble's Lives of the Regicides, 1798, ii. 39, and the Lives of British Statesmen contributed by John Foreter to Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia, iv. 241. Aubrey's Notes supplied to Anthony a Wood, printed in Letters written by Eminent Persons during the 17th and 18th Centuries, and Lives of Eminent Men by John Aubrey, 1813, vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 434-7, contain much gossip about Marten. A fragment of Marten's correspondence is in the possession of Captain Loder-Symonds of Hinton Manor, near Fan ngdon, Berkshire, and is calendared in the 13th Rep. of Hist. MSS. Comm. pt. iv. Other authorities mentioned in the text of the article.]

C. H. F.