LOCKHART, Sir William (1620-75), of Lee, Lanarkshire.

The Lockhart family originated in northern England, but had settled in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire by the thirteenth century. Tradition has it that the name was spelled ‘Locard’ until 1329, when Sir Simon ‘Lockheart’ was entrusted with the key of the casket containing the heart of Robert the Bruce when it was carried on crusade. Later, less flamboyant, Lockharts established themselves as lairds of Lee (on the River Clyde, near Lanark), and served in the national, as well as the local, administration. Sir James Lockhart, the 12th laird, continued the family tradition of serving the monarchy: he was knighted by Charles I in 1633, and his second wife was maid of honour to Henrietta Maria. Such links with the Stuarts did not prevent Sir James from joining the Covenanters in 1638, and he served as a member of the committee of estates and as lord ordinary of the session in the mid-1640s.29Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 31-5.

For much of this period, Sir James was at loggerheads with his eldest son, William Lockhart. At the age of 13 or 14, William refused to continue at school at Lanark, and to avoid his father’s wrath went to the Netherlands to join the Dutch army. After a few months, he deserted, and travelled across northern Europe to Danzig, where his uncle, Sir George Douglas of Mordington, was envoy. On Mordington’s death in 1636 Lockhart accompanied his body back to Scotland, but after a further confrontation with his father, again went abroad.30Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 37. From 1639 he was serving in a Scottish regiment in the French army, and did not return to Scotland until the end of 1644.31NLS, MS 2999, ff. 27-30; Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 37-8. Lockhart was serving as quartermaster to the earl of Lanark’s regiment by May 1645; in June 1646 he was promoted to colonel of the Lanarkshire horse and was knighted by Charles I, who had fled to the Scots at Newark a few weeks before.32Pprs. Rel. Army of Covenant ed. Terry, i. pp. lxv, 139; NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 2, no. 2. In October of the same year Lockhart concluded an influential match with Anna Hamilton, daughter of the lord justice clerk, Sir John Hamilton of Orbiston. By the time of his marriage, relations between Lockhart and his father had thawed, and the laird of Lee and his wife were parties in the marriage contract.33NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 2, no. 4. Father and son were united in their support for the 1st duke of Hamilton and the Engagers, and both were dismissed from their posts after the defeat of the Scottish army at Preston in August 1648.34D. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scot. 1644-51 (1977), 115-6. Sir William Lockhart was present at the battle, and distinguished himself in the rearguard, being captured by Colonel John Lambert* as the remains of the Scottish army made for the border. He was subsequently imprisoned at Hull and then Newcastle; his father was incarcerated in the Tower of London.35Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 38.

On his release from prison in 1650, Sir William Lockhart joined Charles Stuart in Scotland, and, after several months lobbying the general assembly to be rehabilitated, he was appointed general of horse after the defeat at Dunbar in September.36NLS, MS 2999, ff. 44-5. Yet a disagreement with the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*) caused Lockhart to resign his command, and, his offers of support being rejected by Charles in 1651, he did not serve in the Worcester campaign.37Oxford DNB. More by accident than design, therefore, Lockhart found himself less compromised than many of his compatriots when it came to dealing with the Cromwellian invaders in the winter of 1651-2. He was quick to exploit this opportunity. With his brother-in-law George Lockhart I* of Tarbrax in February 1652 Lockhart was appointed deputy for Lanarkshire in tendering the shire’s assent to union with England.38Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 57. This was seen by many as an act of treachery. Sir William’s sister (who was George’s wife), who was mortally ill at the time, denounced the ‘apostasy of the times, and that her brother and husband’s fall had brought on her death’.39Wariston Diary, ii. 154. Worse was to come, as in May 1652 Lockhart was made commissioner for the administration of justice by the English authorities.40Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 174-5. The leading Protester, Sir Archibald Johnston* of Wariston, accused Lockhart of embracing English religious ways, even ‘gathering a new congregation’ to meet in his chamber for worship.41Wariston Diary, ii. 169. Whether or not Wariston’s information was reliable, there is little doubt that Lockhart was becoming distanced from the majority of Scots both politically and religiously. The Resolutioner minister, Robert Baillie, later described Lockhart, with bitter sarcasm, as ‘a man exceedingly sincere, who, all this while, has been very zealous for our king, Kirk and country, no ways self-seeking, as all the world knows’.42Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 401.

Lockhart’s subsequent actions did little to discourage such unfavourable comments. In the winter of 1652-3 he continued to collaborate with the English invaders, travelling to London to attend the Rump Parliament during its deliberations on a formal union between the two countries – he was present at meetings between October 1652 and March 1653 and received a salary of £1 a day for his pains.43R. Landrum, ‘Recs. Of Anglo-Scottish Union Negotiations‘, Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xv. 197-293; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLIV, p. 6; NLS, MS 7032, f. 68. It was probably no coincidence that while Lockhart was at London, in May 1653, his father was released from the Tower of London.44CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 354. Government favour was also reflected in Lockhart’s nomination as one of the Scottish representatives chosen to attend the Nominated Assembly in the summer. His committee appointments suggest that he was most active during July: in that month he was twice named to the committee of Scottish affairs, and also for the Army Committee and that for the advancement of learning.45CJ vii. 283b, 286b, 287b. The extent of Lockhart’s parliamentary activity is otherwise uncertain, but, in comparison with figures like John Swinton* and Alexander Jaffray*, he was probably a moderating influence on the House.46Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 178. In the months that followed, Lockhart became increasingly useful to the English government in Edinburgh, which faced growing unrest in the Highlands. Various favours (notably the exemption of his house from quartering) followed; and in November 1653 Major-general Robert Lilburne* asked Cromwell, ‘if the state sees fit, to send down Colonel Lockhart … to assist in the engaging some honest Scotchmen here that would be forward to embark with us’ adding that such measures would ‘appear to the world we have a party here’. Lilburne’s comments illustrate not only Lockhart’s position of trust with the government but also his isolation from his fellow Scots.47Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLV, unfol.: 2 Sept. 1653; LXXXVI, f. 122; Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 273. Lockhart was aware of the ambiguity of his position, confessing in the spring of 1654 that ‘he wished he had never meddled with the English, for if a man go not on with them in all things, even when they are unsatisfied, he will find them turn his real enemies’.48Wariston Diary, ii. 256.

Despite such misgivings, in the early months of the protectorate Lockhart drew still closer to the Cromwellian regime. He was heavily involved in the government’s deliberations over the Kirk, and favoured the reforms advanced by Patrick Gillespie, whose Protester party was willing to compromise with the Independent churches. Other Protesters were cautious about Gillespie’s initiative: despite being ‘dealt with much by Colonel Lockhart’ and receiving personal letters from Oliver Cromwell*, another leading minister, James Guthrie, refused an invitation to come to London in May 1654.49Wariston Diary, ii. 259. Wariston also opposed the new regulations, and in August hoped to get ‘assistance in the conference’ from Lockhart; and when the Gillespie ‘charter’ was eventually agreed, Guthrie warned ‘lest Swinton, Lockhart and [Sir James McDowell* of] Gartland should so grieve the spirit of God as to quench him or cause him to put them to open shame, for their walking contrary to his light and checks’.50Wariston Diary, ii. 303, 315. In lending his support to Gillespie, Lockhart was siding with a small faction within the minority party in the Kirk, and this did nothing to increase his popularity across Scotland. As yet, he was insulated from the immediate effects of this by the strength of his own network among the Lanarkshire gentry, and by the continuing dominance of Gillespie and his friends in the city of Glasgow and its hinterland. Lockhart’s election for Lanarkshire for the first protectorate Parliament in August 1654 owed as much to local particularism as to government intervention. Significantly, it was the lairds of Lanarkshire, rather than the government, who pressed for Lockhart to be paid his allowance for attending Parliament.51Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLVI, unfol.: 15 Jan. 1655. At Westminster, Lockhart was once again named to the committee of Scottish affairs (29 Sept.), and on 22 December reported from the same committee amendments on a bill for changing land tenures in Scotland.52CJ vii. 371b, 407b. He was also named to the committee of Irish affairs (29 Sept.), and to the privileges committee when it examined disputed Irish elections (5 Oct.).53CJ vii. 371b, 373b. These and other committees brought him into contact not only with other Scottish MPs but also with leading Irish Protestants, such as Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), who were already starting to consider the future settlement of the three nations as dependent on closer union under Cromwell.54CJ vii. 370b, 371b, 380a.

Lockhart’s second marriage, in February 1655, and his subsequent appointment to the Scottish council transformed his standing in Scotland. From being considered as a maverick, even an apostate, Lockhart became a man to be courted, whose influence could gain favours at Edinburgh or Whitehall. His marriage, to Robina Sewster, Cromwell’s niece, was solemnised on 22 February 1655 at St Martin-in-the-Fields in Westminster and the festivities were hosted by the protector at Hampton Court.55CSP Ven. 1655-6, pp. 33, 33n; Clarke Pprs. iii. 23. The marriage contract, signed on 19 February, reveals the depth of Cromwell’s involvement in the match. Robina’s marriage portion was provided from the protector’s own pocket, in return for the right to income from the Lee estate and a further £2,000 in cash provided by the Lockharts to be invested in English lands. The trustees included Cromwell’s son-in-law John Disbrowe* and another relative, Edward Sedgewick*.56NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 2, no. 4; TSP iv. 342. Lockhart’s change in status was underlined by a shower of official favours in the following months: he was granted custody of Falkland Palace and Stirling Castle by the protector, as well as the barony of Kelso and other lands, the latter possibly forming part of his wife’s marriage portion.57Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 40; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 265; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLVII, unfol.: 23 July 1655; Wariston Diary, iii. 26. When the formation of the Scottish council was discussed at Whitehall in March, Lockhart was among the Scottish candidates, and his position was confirmed in the final list, passed by the protectoral council in May.58Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XXVII, ff. 70v, 86; CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 108, 152; TSP iii. 423. Lockhart was continued as a judge, despite his new role in the executive, which prevented his regular attendance on the bench, and he was also appointed keeper of the Scottish signet (with an income worth £2,000) in 1656.59TSP iv. 268-9; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS LI, f. 30; Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 317-8. Lockhart’s rise culminated in his appointment as Cromwell’s representative (and later as full ambassador) to France in the spring of 1656.

Despite the sour comments of Baillie (who said his promotion had ‘made great malcontentment in the heart of most’), Lockhart’s influence was acknowledged by both factions within the Scottish Kirk, who now beat a path to his door.60Baillie Lttrs . and Jnls. iii. 290. On 31 August 1655 Wariston and his Protester friends attended Lockhart to ask for support in their plan to tender a new covenant, but were told that ‘the present power would never give or suffer to one of the parties to use jurisdiction over the other … [nor] suffer anything more in Scotland than in England in church matters’. This cold repetition of the official line was seen by Wariston as a positive ‘discouragement’, but in November the Protesters talked to Lockhart with ‘good liberty and assistance’ and in January 1656 he said he had ‘spoken to the protector’ of their demands.61Wariston Diary, iii. 7-8, 18, 25. Similarly, although the rival Resolutioner party had always been wary of Lockhart and other ‘complying gentlemen’, in December 1656 they also approached him, seeking assistance in their bid to change the rules on clerical stipends.62Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 288; Consultations, ed. Stephen, i. 257-9. Such approaches came to nothing, partly because of Lockhart’s own religious views, which now differed wildly from those held by both parties. Wariston had reported Lockhart’s patronage of an Independent congregation as early as 1652, and by 1657 some royalists in France suspected that he was a member of a ‘sect’, eschewing divine service in his house altogether, ‘yet policy will, during his abode here, make him profess himself Presbyterian’.63SP78/113, ff. 127, 136. This inclination towards Independency may have distanced Lockhart from the Kirk, but it cemented his relationship with the saints of Cromwell’s entourage.

Although unwilling to use his new connections to help either the Resolutioners or the Protesters, Lockhart treated noble supplicants more sympathetically. The earl of Lothian, who was related to Lockhart through the Douglases of Mordington, received support for payment of a pension which he had been granted in the 1640s. Although the treasury was ‘over-charged’ with such ‘old arrears’, in May 1655 Lockhart gave Lothian’s agent ‘further ground to urge the business’ and ‘resolved to try what we can do with his highness’ in the matter. In the following December Lockhart apologised for the delay, and assured Lothian that ‘I shall lay out the small interest I have to endeavour the procuring of an advantageous report therein’. As late as June 1658, Lockhart, although busy with diplomatic and military affairs in Paris, remained active in support of additional claims on the state by the countess of Lothian64Corresp. of Earls of Ancram and Lothian (2 vols. Edinburgh, 1875), i. p. cxv; ii. 390, 399-401, 411.. Another Scottish earl who benefited from Lockhart’s intercession was the earl of Callander, who told Lothian in May 1655 that ‘I have kissed the lord protector’s hands by Colonel Lockhart’s means, who hath infinitely obliged me’, but feared that ‘when Colonel Lockhart is gone from [London], I will be left deserted’.65Corresp. of Ancram and Lothian, ii. 391. In December 1655 Lockhart also interceded with the protectoral council on behalf of the countess of Lauderdale, and in February 1657 Lockhart’s father requested that he ‘befriend my Lord Southesk in the obtaining the discharge of sequestration’.66Add. 23113, f. 40; Bodl. Clarendon 54, f. 9. Lockhart was also an important supporter of the duchess of Hamilton, in her attempt to safeguard her inheritance against the male heirs, the earl of Abercorn and his son Lord Paisley, intervening with the protectoral council in October 1656 and March and April 1657, and writing to the protector on her behalf in January and February 1658.67NRS, GD 406/1/2528, 2532-3; Bodl. Clarendon 54, ff. 133; Clarendon 57, f. 47; SP78/113, f. 142. Lockhart’s interest in the Hamilton case was not entirely philanthropic, as he told John Thurloe* in January 1658: ‘there are considerable sums of money due to me out of that estate, which hath made me beg his highness’s justice and the benefit of the laws of the nation in the behalf of myself and her other lawful creditors’.68Bodl. Clarendon 57, f. 47. This financial obligation probably dated from his involvement with the duchess’s father and uncle (James, duke of Hamilton, and William, earl of Lanark) in the later 1640s, but had taken on a more urgent form in 1653, when Lockhart bought up the ‘donative’ lands in the barony of Hamilton granted to Colonel Richard Ingoldsby*. Lockhart paid £3,881 for these lands, but, as he made clear in a later deed, ‘the said bargain was made by me for the use and behalf of her grace, Anne, duchess of Hamilton’.69NRS, GD 406/M.1/202. The rights to the property were duly passed on to the duchess in 1657, once she had paid back the money borrowed from Lockhart.70NRAS 332 (Hamilton MSS), F.1/194; F.1/208-9.

Lockhart’s intervention on behalf of Scottish petitioners parallels his involvement, from afar, in the second protectorate Parliament of 1656-8. He was returned of Lanarkshire by an electorate which included many friends and relations (including George Lockhart I of Tarbrax*, John Lockhart* and numerous members of the Hamilton family) in a vote overseen by his brother-in-law from his first marriage, Sir James Hamilton* of Orbiston, as sheriff.71C219/45, unfol. Lockhart offered to inform Thurloe of the ‘deportment’ of the individual Scottish MPs (presumably to assist in the exclusion process) and in early November asked for aid for ‘a brother-in-law of mine, who is one of the members, that the Council hath not approven’: the brother-in-law in question, George Lockhart I, was soon back in the House.72TSP v. 267, 585; Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 357. William Lockhart was in France for most of this Parliament, returning to England for a brief visit in December 1656, when he was knighted by the protector, and he was added to just two committees – including that for Scottish affairs – on 24 December.73Burton’s Diary, i. 107; CJ vii. 474a-b. On his return to Paris in early January 1657, Lockhart left ‘my brother Swinton’s business’ (probably John Swinton’s stake in the forfeited lands of the earl of Lauderdale) in Thurloe’s hands.74TSP v. 769. Otherwise he relied on his brother John Lockhart, who received instructions in such matters as the Hamilton inheritance, and acted as mediator between the ambassador and Secretary Thurloe. George Lockhart I was also active on his behalf, notably when the case of the earl of Callander came before the committee of Scottish Affairs in June 1657.75Supra, ‘John Lockhart’ and ‘George Lockhart I’. Both men voted in favour of the offer of the crown to Cromwell being included in the Humble Petition and Advice in March 1657, and there is little doubt that the ambassador shared their view: even before Parliament met, Lockhart had told Thurloe that he had ‘hopes’ that the session would be ‘instrumental in settling the nations’.76TSP v. 202.

Lockhart’s reaction to Cromwell’s refusal of the crown was, on the surface, philosophical. As he told Richard Cromwell*

if his highness can be moved to accept of it, the services he hath done the nations have abundantly deserved it, but if he who hath so much merited it do judge it fit to continue his refusal of it the contempt of a crown, which cannot proceed but from an extraordinary virtue, will render him in the esteem of all whose opinion is to be valued more honourable than any that wear it.77SP78/113, f. 155; Bodl. Clarendon 54, f. 146.

Yet Lockhart’s behaviour in the previous few weeks suggests that he was excited by the prospect of his wife’s uncle taking the throne. The Venetian ambassador in France reported in early April, Lockhart ‘has given up his house and it seems as if he would take his leave very soon of the court, as he should share proportionately in this rise of fortune, owing to his connection through his wife’.78CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 44. On 11 April Lockhart indicated to Thurloe that he thought Cromwell might be persuaded to accept kingship, comparing the recent death of the Holy Roman Emperor with the protector’s refusal of the crown, for ‘the last may be recovered although the first cannot’.79SP78/113, f. 152. After Cromwell’s final refusal of the crown, Lockhart had to make do with the renewal of his Scottish judicial positions in August 1657, and his elevation to the Other House in December.80NLS, MS 7032, ff. 100v, 106v.

Although naturally interested in the outcome of such measures as the kingship debates, for Lockhart the second protectorate Parliament was rivalled in importance by the dictates of Cromwellian foreign policy. On leaving England in April 1656, he had been instructed to conclude an alliance with the French king as quickly as possible, for a variety of reasons. Cromwell needed to secure French support in his war against Spain, to prevent a unilateral peace from uniting the two Catholic powers against him (and in favour of Charles Stuart); and in return he was willing to send English troops to join a force against the Spanish-held ports, especially Dunkirk. Cromwell was also concerned with safeguarding the position of the French Huguenots, and hoped to maintain links with other Protestant interests, including the German states and even Sweden, who had increasingly looked for French support against the Imperial house of Austria since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Lockhart’s role was therefore both specific and general: to arrange a campaign in Flanders and to keep alight the flame of international Protestantism. After a series of delays, a treaty was signed on 3 March 1657, and 6,000 soldiers were sent to Flanders under Sir John Reynolds*, with support from the Cromwellian fleet. Despite tensions between the new allies, Mardyke fell to their joint army in September 1657 and Dunkirk eventually surrendered after a relieving Spanish army was defeated at the battle of the Dunes in June 1658. English troops garrisoned Dunkirk, and Lockhart was made governor of the town. The successes in Flanders were not matched by an improvement in conditions for the French Huguenots. Although Lockhart was a useful focus for Protestants in Paris, he failed to gain major concessions, and only great pressure on Cardinal Mazarin produced an official denunciation of the Piedmont massacres which scandalised opinion in Britain, and narrowly averted domestic persecution of the Huguenots at Nîmes. Throughout the period, Lockhart’s insistence on championing the Protestants, and his antagonism to the English, Scottish and Irish royalists in Paris created friction between him and the French government, itself under pressure not to continue the alliance with the heretical protectorate.81T. Venning, Cromwellian Foreign Policy (Basingstoke, 1996), 112-17, 125-32, 141-7; TSP v. 4, 41, 109, 142, 253, 488, 585-6; vi. 63, 87, 487, 647, 695; vii. 159, 169-70; Clarke Pprs. iii. 154.

Lockhart’s period as representative in Paris reinforced his personal attachment to the house of Cromwell. On his arrival in France in April 1656, he made much of his family connection with the protector.82TSP iv. 727-8, 739-40. As the Venetian ambassador to France reported, Lockhart ‘calls himself nephew, on his wife’s side, of Cromwell’, and his hosts acknowledged this by bringing him to the Louvre in royal carriages ‘as Cromwell’s nephew, not … [as] a mere gentleman envoy’.83CSP Ven. 1655-6, pp. 215, 220. When Lockhart was made full ambassador in March 1657, he brought his wife over from England, and was treated ‘with all the ceremony and respect I can desire’, as the ambassador of a ‘prince’.84TSP vi. 87; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 21, 26, 29-30; CCSP iii. 260. In August he boasted of being treated ‘familiarly’ by the French royal family, and in March 1658 Lockhart’s wife was invited to the Louvre on a social visit, ‘where they made her be seated and she was saluted with a kiss from the king and the duke of Anjou’.85TSP vi. 421; CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 175. During his absence, Lockhart made great efforts to continue his friendship with another relative-by-marriage, Viscount Fauconberg (Thomas Belasyse*), and the protector’s sons, Henry Cromwell* and Richard Cromwell*. Lockhart was defending the reputation of Fauconberg (then in Paris) as early as March 1657; in June 1657 he encouraged him to propose marriage to the protector’s daughter; and in November congratulated him on the success of his matrimonial ambitions.86CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 318; CCSP iii. 302, 388. In the same period he was in contact with Henry Cromwell in Ireland, hoping to secure a favourable land settlement for his brother John.87Henry Cromwell Corresp. 354. In January 1658 Lockhart told Fauconberg of his desire to become more intimate with Richard – as ‘I have of late made myself a stranger to [him] and feared ‘some may do me the ill offices as to insinuate somewhat to my disadvantage from it’ – and in an enclosed letter told the protector’s heir of the loyalty he owed to ‘his master and prince’.88SP78/114, ff. 27-8. Richard’s reply, sent via Fauconberg, was warm in its praise of Lockhart.89CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 273. In his letters, Lockhart emphasised his relationship with the ruling family, and expected to be treated as part of the clan. When planning a brief visit to London in April 1658, for example, Lockhart asked Fauconberg to procure one of the protector’s private coaches ‘to meet my wife at Dover’ while he came up to London by post-horse.90SP78/114, f. 113. Lockhart was encouraged in this by the friendliness of the Cromwells. The lord protector and his family had come to trust him, and evidently felt great affection for his wife, whose recovery from child-birth in December 1657 prompted messages of rejoicing from Oliver Cromwell and John Disbrowe, as well as the Fauconbergs.91CCSP iii. 398; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 268; TSP vii. 159.

The death of Oliver Cromwell and the succession of Richard did little to dent Lockhart’s enthusiasm for the protectorate and its ruling house. He was re-appointed ambassador in October, and remained a staunch supporter of the regime.92CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 257; CCSP iv. 102, 119. In the third protectorate Parliament, which convened in January 1659, Lockhart was entitled to sit in the Other House, but remained in France for the whole of the session. Once again, he was represented at Westminster by his relatives – in this case his brothers, John Lockhart and George Lockhart II* - and they followed the ambassador’s political line, defending the union and the right of the Scottish MPs to sit. The forced closure of Parliament in April 1659, and the fall of the protectorate a month later threatened everything. There was much speculation as to Lockhart’s next move: would he continue to support Richard Cromwell, or throw in his lot with those who called for the restoration of the commonwealth? On 29 April a royalist spy summed up the mood of uncertainty: ‘tis too young days with us to guess what the Irish Harry [Henry Cromwell II*], the Scots [George] Monck*, or the Sea [Edward] Montagu* will do; Lockhart is near you and considerable: he may never live to [see] a better opportunity’.93Nicholas Pprs. iv. 123; CCSP iv. 191, 194, 200-1, 208-9, 218. For the next month, Lockhart consolidated his position at Dunkirk, and waited on events elsewhere. The decision of Monck and Montagu to accept the Rump Parliament left Lockhart with little choice but to do the same, and at the beginning of June there were reports that ‘Lockhart … is at London and seems willing to submit his charge to the Parliament’.94Nicholas Pprs. iv. 138, 145, 148, 265; CCSP iv. 209, 219-20. To the surprise of some, Lockhart returned to London at the beginning of June, and was immediately re-appointed as ambassador by the commonwealth.95Clarke Pprs. v. 296; SP78/114, f. 270; CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 26-7, 33, 36; CCSP iv. 231, 235. Even then many distrusted his motives: as a Dunkirk newsletter put it, ‘he is heartily connected to the Parliament, or else he plays his game very cunningly, so that he is verily believed to be’.96Bodl. Clarendon 61, f. 93.

Lockhart was ‘most solemnly received at the court of France’ in early July 1659.97Clarke Pprs. iv. 24. He served his new commonwealth masters faithfully enough, complaining to the French in July of news that the prince of Condé had joined forces with Charles Stuart, and being thanked for his efforts in August; but there was little of the enthusiasm he had felt for the protectorate, and when the army officers mounted a coup against Parliament in the autumn, he sided with the Rump.98CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 47; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 123; Whitelocke, Diary, 559. In the months before the Restoration, Lockhart again manoeuvred for position, aware not only that the return of Charles Stuart was becoming more likely, but also that the French and Spanish were on the verge of signing a peace treaty. His trump card was his possession of Dunkirk, and as early as November 1659 he was suspected of negotiating to sell the port to the French for private gain.99CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 93. In early May 1660 there were further rumours that he was ‘treating to give it to the Spaniards’ intending ‘to get his own personal profit therefrom’, and with the tacit agreement of the English king.100CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 147-8. In the event, Dunkirk remained in English hands until sold back to the French in 1662, and Lockhart resigned his post to the new king in June 1660, being replaced as governor by Colonel Edward Harley*.101CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 159; Whitelocke, Diary, 589.

Aside from losing his offices, Lockhart was not penalised after the return of the Stuarts. This leniency was probably in recognition of his prudence in the face of political upheaval over the previous six months, and his timely submission to the royalists; but there may have been other factors at work, including lobbying in Scotland, where his father, Sir James Lockhart, and others, were reported to be conspiring to ‘bring in Colonel Lockhart in employment for Scotland’.102Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 401. Although this scheme failed, General John Middleton may have stepped in to prevent Lockhart from being punished for his earlier allegiances.103Oxford DNB. He was not short of friends at court, and received a royal pardon on 9 October 1660.104NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 2, no. 11. One issue remained unresolved, however. In February 1657 Lockhart had been lent plate and tapestries for his use as ambassador, and in 1660 the crown asked for their return. Having explained that the plate had been sold to pay his debts (incurred on behalf of the state) and that his pay was in arrears, he was eventually discharged in 1664.105CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 261; 1660-1, p. 397; 1664-5, p. 72.

In the meantime, Lockhart lived in retirement. He settled at Upwood in Huntingdonshire (the neighbouring parish to his wife’s home parish of Wistow), where his wife gave birth to a daughter in 1661, and he was staying there in February 1663.106CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 496; Hunts. RO, 2130/1/1 (Upwood with Great Raveley par. regs.), f. 11. Lockhart did not return to public life until 1670, when he was appointed to the Scottish privy council, and over the next few years he returned to his diplomatic career, becoming envoy to the duke of Brandenburg and adviser to the duke of Monmouth in his campaigns in France and Flanders. Lockhart was re-appointed ambassador of France in 1674, the year his father died, and was granted a pension of £400 by the crown.107NLS, Lockhart Charters A.1, folder 3, nos. 14 and 15. He enjoyed the Lee estate for barely a year before he also died, in Paris, in 1675. Sir William was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, the appropriately named Cromwell Lockhart. The death without children of successive heirs over the next century led to the estate passing to the descendants of his brother George Lockhart II of Carnwath, in 1778.108Lockhart, Seven Centuries, 46-8, 50-2, 54.