LOCKHART, George II (c.1630-89), of Braidwood and Carnwath, Lanarkshire.

George Lockhart II was a younger brother of Cromwell’s ambassador to France, Sir William Lockhart*, and must not be confused with his brother-in-law, George Lockhart I of Tarbrax*, who was commissary of Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and sat for Lanark Burghs in 1656. George II was trained as a lawyer, and was admitted to the faculty of advocates on 8 January 1656 – four days after the admission of his younger brother, John Lockhart*.13Faculty of Advocates ed. Grant, 125. Sir William Lockhart was the driving force behind George’s early advancement. In June 1657 Sir William recommended both his younger brothers to Secretary John Thurloe* for vacant offices in the ‘judicatories in Scotland’ and said he would ‘answer for the abilities and affection of the elder, who is in Scotland; and I remember when I once mentioned his being made his highness’s advocate, you were pleased to hear the proposition favourably’.14TSP vi. 337. After a year’s delay, on 18 June 1658, George was appointed to the vacant office of advocate-general of Scotland by Oliver Cromwell*.15NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 4, no. 17.

Sir William’s influence can also be seen later in George’s career. In the elections for the third protectorate Parliament in January 1659, Lockhart was returned for Lanarkshire, a seat vacated by his brother on his elevation to the Other House at the end of 1657. At Westminster, Lockhart came to the fore as a defender of the right of Scottish MPs to sit, challenged in a series of debates in March. Even at this early stage of his career, Lockhart was an impressive speaker. On 10 March he argued that the English had themselves tendered the union to the Scots in 1652 and could not back out of it now, as ‘there is a declaration and manifest engagement from England, to preserve the rights and liberties of that nation’. He continued, ‘the privilege of sitting here is expressed in the act of union and the Petition and Advice. Not only de jure, but by possession we have sat here’; and added, on a practical point, that ‘if they be debarred, it will not only annul all that is done this Parliament, but all Parliaments before’. Turning to a specific objection, concerning the failure of the Humble Petition and Advice to specify the number or distribution of the Scottish seats, Lockhart argued that ‘the clause is no more plain for England than for Scotland and Ireland’, and that if it had been left out, then the problem could be sorted out by order of the protector and council, by following the precedents of 1654 and 1656, or by ‘tacit consent’, both of the Parliament and of ‘the persons that have the right to choose’ – in other words, the voters of Scotland.16Burton’s Diary, iv. 114-5; Schilling thesis, 198-9. Lockhart’s speech showed his support not only of union, but also of the protector, and his faith in Parliament, which he argued (apparently without irony) had ‘tenderly cared for’ Scotland in previous years.17Burton’s Diary, iv. 116.

On 11 March, Lockhart again spoke in favour of the Scottish MPs continuing to sit, turning again to their rights under the act of union

the 4th article [of the Humble Petition] makes it out that the distribution shall be agreed in Parliament. A bill of union was debated in a grand committee, and ready to be reported to this House. In that was a clause that 30 members should be for that nation. The House not having time to pass this, they did confirm the ordinance of union [of 1654], wherein were provided 30 members for Scotland. Pursuant to this, they had a possession last Parliament. I shall not say we have as good a right as England, but we have a sufficient right.18Burton’s Diary, iv. 124-5.

Lockhart’s logic was impeccable: the right of Scotland to elect 30 MPs was enshrined within the union ordinance of April 1654, which had been enacted by Parliament in the rush of legislation that preceded the adjournment of June 1657. Only the distribution of these seats was in doubt. Lockhart likened this to the assessments levied on Scotland: ‘you regard not the distribution, so [as] you have your whole sum’. Furthermore, the fact that the Humble Petition omitted rules on distribution did not annul any existing law, and ‘whatever is not disposed of there, is referred to the laws of the land’. As he then concluded, ‘there was a law in being before the Petition and Advice. We have sat here three Parliaments upon that distribution, and have five years’ possession. By the law of our own nation and upon the Petition and Advice, we have a right’.19Burton’s Diary, iv. 125-6; Schilling thesis, 204-5. It was a brilliant speech, but Lockhart’s incisive arguments had little lasting impact, as the English MPs were intent on following their own, rather different, agenda. Lockhart’s later interjections were short and grumpy. On 12 March he moved that the debate be adjourned; on 17 March he dismissed the discussion on writs as irrelevant; and when he again tried to speak on the following day, he was rudely cried down. It was left to his younger brother, John Lockhart, to continue the defence of Scottish rights, amid general hostility.20Burton’s Diary, iv. 147, 171, 185-6; Schilling thesis, 242. The House voted to allow the Scots to remain, and George Lockhart was duly named to the committee of Scottish affairs on 1 April; but he played no further recorded part in the short time before the Parliament was dissolved.21CJ vii. 623b.

George Lockhart’s brief but impressive career at Westminster was a foretaste of things to come. With his two brothers, he fared reasonably well after the Restoration, being re-admitted to the faculty of advocates in 1661 and knighted in 1663, but, like them, it was over a decade before he was appointed to senior office. During the 1660s and 1670s he acquired a reputation as an outstanding lawyer, and in 1677 he was retained as advocate by James duke of York. He defended the duke against the duke of Lauderdale’s party in the Scottish Parliaments of the 1680s, and in 1686 was appointed lord president by his patron, now James II.22Young, Parliaments of Scot. 433. During this period Lockhart made an ambitious match wit a daughter of Lord Wharton, and purchased considerable estates in Lanarkshire, including the barony of Carnwath. With prosperity came notoriety, and his decision against John Cheisly of Dalry, who had refused to pay alimony to his abandoned wife and ten children, brought a terrible revenge. While walking home from church in Edinburgh on Easter Day 1689, Lockhart was shot in the back by Cheisly, and died where he fell.23Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 65-6. He was succeeded by his son, George Lockhart†, who sat as commissioner for Edinburgh Shire in the Scottish Parliament of 1703-7 and as MP for Edinburgh in the Westminster Parliament of 1708-15.24Young, Parliaments of Scot. 433.