court of justice, as earl of
Cambridge, in England; and condemned for treason. This sentence,
which was certainly hard, but which ought to save his memory from all
imputations of treachery to his master, was executed on a scaffold
erected before Westminster Hall. Lord Capel underwent the same fate.
Both these noblemen had escaped from prison, but were afterwards
discovered and taken. To all the solicitations of their friends for
pardon, the generals and parliamentary leaders still replied, that it
was certainly the intention of Providence they should suffer; since it
had permitted them to fall into the hands of their enemies, after they
had once recovered their liberty.

The earl of Holland lost his life by a like sentence. Though of a polite
and courtly behavior, he died lamented by no party. His ingratitude to
the king, and his frequent changing of sides, were regarded as great
stains on his memory. The earl of Norwich and Sir John Owen, being
condemned by the same court, were pardoned by the commons.

The king left six children--three males: Charles, born in 1630;
James, duke of York, born in 1633; Henry, duke of Gloucester, born
in 1641;--and three females: Mary, princess of Orange, born 1631;
Elizabeth, born 1635; and Henrietta, afterwards duchess of Orleans, born
at Exeter, 1644.

The archbishops of Canterbury in this reign were Abbot and Laud; the
lord keepers, Williams bishop of Lincoln, Lord Coventry, Lord Finch,
Lord Littleton, and Sir Richard Lane; the high admirals, the duke of
Buckingham and the earl of Northumberland; the treasurers, the earl
of Marlborough, the earl of Portland, Juxon bishop of London, and Lord
Cottington; the secretaries of state, Lord Conway, Sir Albertus
Moreton, Coke, Sir Henry Vane, Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, and Sir Edward
Nicholas.

It may be expected that we should here mention the Icon Basilike, a work
published in the king's name a few days after his execution. It seems
almost impossible, in the controverted parts of history, to say any
thing which will satisfy the zealots of both parties: but with regard to
the genuineness of that production, it is not easy for an historian
to fix any opinion which will be entirely to his own satisfaction. The
proofs brought to evince that this work is or is not the king's, are so
convincing, that if an impartial reader peruse any one side apart,[*] he
will think it impossible that arguments could be produced, sufficient to
counterbalance