what 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
