543
restoration of monarchy. When Monk first hinted
that his exertions would be at the service of the
king, and advised him speedily to quit Spain, lest
his person might be seized as a hostage for the re-
storation of Dunkirk, Charles fled to Breda; and
Lockhart might at once have obtained pardon for all
offences, and the prospect of high promotion under
the new order of things, if he would have acceded to
a request (made with many flattering promises) to
throw open to him the gates of Dunkirk. But the
man who had said he would not be insulted even by
a king, answered that "he was trusted by thecommon-
weath, and could not betray it."1 "This scruple,"
says Hume, "though in the present emergence it
approaches towards superstition, it is difficult for
us entirely to condemn;" but the elegant historian
made the observation on the presumption that Lock-
hart "was nowise averse to the king's service."
"Whether this refusal," says Clarendon, "proceeded
from the punctuality of his nature (for he was a
man of parts and of honour), or from his jealousy
for the garrison, that they would not be disposed
by him (for though he was exceedingly beloved and
obeyed by them, yet they were all Englishmen,
and he had none of his own nation, which was the
Scottish, but in his own family); certain it is that,
at the same time that he refused to treat with the
king, he refused to accept the great offers made to
him by the cardinal, who had a high esteem of him,
and offered to make him marshal of France, with
great appointments of pensions and other emolu-
ments, if he would deliver Dunkirk and Mardyke
into the hands of France; all which overtures he re-
jected: so that his majesty had no place to resort to
preferable to Breda."2 After the termination of the
period of excitement and energy in which he bore so
active a part, little of interest remains to be told
connected with the events of Lockhart's life. He
was of course deprived of the government of Dun-
kirk, which was bestowed on Sir Edward Harley.
Through the intercession of Middleton he was suf-
fered to return to Britain, and was introduced to
Charles; he then retired to Scotland, where he
buried himself in retirement, and amused himself
with teaching his fellow-countrymen the English
methods of agriculture; but, driven away by the pre-
vailing anarchy, he preferred a residence with the
relations of his wife, in Huntingdonshire. In 1665,
when a renewed struggle of the commonwealth's men
was expected in Scotland, the busy spirits who had
dreamed of rather than concocted the enterprise,
looked to the Earl of Cassillis and Lockhart as the
individuals who would probably become their leaders;
but neither countenancing the advances which were
cautiously made, the project fell for a period. In
1671 he was brought to court by Lauderdale, and he
showed no disinclination to be employed, "not so
much," says Burnet, "out of ambition to rise, as
from a desire to be safe, and to be no longer looked
on as an enemy to the court." But Charles seems
to have considered him as one of his "natural" ene-
mies, "for when a foreign minister," continues
Burnet, "asked the king leave to treat with him in
his master's name, the king consented, but with this
severe reflection, that he believed he would be true
to anybody but himself." " He was sent," continues
the same authority, "to the courts of Brandenburg
and Lunenburg, either to draw them into the alliance,
or, if that could not be done, at least to secure them
from all apprehensions. But in this he had no
success. And indeed when he saw into what a
negotiation he was engaged, he became very uneasy.
1Burnet, i. 86.
2 Clarendon, ut sup.
For though the blackest part of the secret was not
trusted to him, as appeared to me by the instructions
which I read after his death, yet he saw whither
things were going; and that affected him so deeply,
that it was believed to have contributed not a little
to the languishing he soon fell into, which ended in
his death two years after." This event took place on
the 2Oth March, 1675, a year after the death of his
father. Noble has told us that his death was attri-
buted to the alternate causes of "a poisoned glove,"
and disgust at the machinations betwixt Charles and
Louis, of which he had been the unconscious instru-
ment. "I have ever looked on him," says Burnet,
"as the greatest man that his country produced in
this age, next to Sir Robert Murray."
LOGAN, GEORGE, chiefly celebrated as the con-
troversial opponent of Ruddiman, was born in the
year 1678, and is supposed to have been the son of
George Logan, a descendent of the family of Logan
of Logan in Ayrshire, who married Miss Cunningham,
a daughter of the clergyman of Old Cumnock, and
sister to Mr. Alexander Cunningham, professor of
civil law in the university of Edinburgh towards the
latter end of the eighteenth century.3 George Logan
was educated at the university of Glasgow, of
which he entered the Greek class in 1693, and became
a Master of Arts in 1696. Being destined for the
church, he was licensed as a preacher by the pres-
bytery of Glasgow about the year 1702, and on the
7th of April, 1707, he was ordained a minister by the
same presbytery, in pursuance of a popular call to
the parish of Lauder, the ministry of which he ob-
tained in preference to two other candidates, Mr.
Stephen Oliver and Mr. George Hall. He remained
at Lauder until the 22d January, 1719, when, in
consequence of another call, which was unanimous
on the part of the parishioners, he was appointed to
the ministry of Sprouston, in the presbytery of Kelso.
A second time inducements were held forth, which
prompted him to change his sphere of duty, and on
the 22d January, 1722, he was inducted as minister
of Dunbar. Here he married his first wife, the sister
of Sir Alexander Home of Eccles in the Merse, a
lady who left him a son and daughter, both of whom
survived him. His ministry appears to have secured
much popularity, for advancement was again held
forth to him; and on the I4th December, 1732,
he was admitted one of the ministers of Edinburgh.
He whose fame and fortune had been so much ad-
vanced by the popular voice, now published a treatise
On the Right of Electing Ministers, and it may safely
be presumed that the liberal opinions thus com-
menced, and continued through the rest of his life,
were at least fostered by the influence which the ex-
ercise of a popular right had produced on his own
fortune. It is probable that this tract was published
just before his appointment to the charge in Edin-
burgh, being dated in the same year. When the act
for bringing to punishment those connected with the
Porteous mob, in 1736, was ordered to be read in
all the churches, on the last Sunday of every month
during a year, "all the ministers,"says Mr. Chalmers,
rather enigmatically, "did not think with Logan
that the will of the legislature ought, on this occa-
sion, to be obeyed. And he was carried, by the
activity of his temper, into a contest, in 1737, with
the Rev. Dr. Alexander Webster, one of the ministers
of Edinburgh, on the propriety of refusing obedience
to an act of parliament, in a point wherein it is not
easy to perceive how either conscience or religion
could be concerned." On the 8th of May, 1740,
3 Chalmers' Life of Ruddiman, 190.