PRESTON TOWER, THE HAMILTONS AND THE SETON’S.

 
THE Tower at Preston is supposed to have been built during the 14th century (1365). The original height of the Tower, from the ground to the battlement, was 46 feet, and from the battlement to the extreme top other 20 feet, making over all a total measurement of 66 feet. The grand Tower stands directly above the great whinstone dyke, which takes its course westward through Morrison's Haven, and eastward into the German Ocean. A number of years ago a movement was set on foot to have the quaint old fortalice partially restored, especially the top-work, which, being exposed to the elements, was beginning to crumble. For this a sum of £350 was sought by subscription, and was speedily forthcoming. About. £500 was expended on the ruin at that period.

PRESTON TOWER.
Now, as we behold in the distance the fine old ruin standing in all its solitary yet picturesque grandeur, amidst
the old grounds over which it has stood a weary but watchful guardian for so many past centuries, how grim, and strong, and defiant-like it still appears, and as we approach the venerable structure curious are the thoughts that arise.
There stands the aged tower, with the great wide space all around which, according to tradition, has borne witness in the ancient days to many a fierce tournament for honours at the hands of some fair maiden; which has given ear to the shrill trumpet sound at the dead of night when preparing for the foray, perhaps against their neighbours at Fawside; or, more alarming still, to the hoarse shout of the leaders to battle, and to the wild yell of the accompanying horsemen as they rushed upon horsemen, to the murderous clang of sabre upon sabre, the shouts of the warriors and the groans of the wounded, when perhaps these neighbouring opponents were furiously retaliating upon the chief and his retainers at Preston. But the days of these murderous forays, if they ever existed at Preston, are happily departed for ever; and, leaving such speculations behind, how very different are the feelings which now pervade the soul when, casting the eye around, we behold not trampling steeds and rnail-clad warriors, but only the deep drooping fruit-laden trees of the husbandman.

THE HAMILTONS OF PRESTON.
The first of the name of Hamilton in Scotland was a Sir Gilbert de Hamilton, who flourished during the early part of the 13th century. The elder son of this Sir Gilbert was Sir Walter, and he was the founder of the family of Cadzow; while the younger son, Sir John, was the immediate ancestor of the Hamiltons of Rossavon, Fingalton, and Preston.
The Hamiltons of Preston are thus the eldest of the junior branches of that name. Originally in possession of the lands of Ross, or Rossavon, this branch of the Hamiltons had its earliest seat in an old "Peel Tower, " perched on a wooded promontory, and encircled by the river Avon, where, after a long descent from the upland moors of Drumclog, it pours its tribute into the Clyde.  To their lands of Rossavon were soon added the barony of Fingalton in Renfrewshire, and at a later period that of Preston in East Lothian.  The foregoing is an historical fact, but at what period this branch of the Hamiltons obtained possession of the lands of Preston, or by what means they acquired them, seems to be shrouded in not a little mystery. Sir Walter Scott supposed Preston Tower to have been a seat or fortalice of the Earls of Home, when they held almost a princely sway over the south of Scotland; and all the gazetteers, etc., since his day, without halting to inquire, simply repeat what he supposed. The supposition of the novelist may pass muster in fiction, but facts have to be dealt with in history. When, for instance, had the Homes to do with the Swans of Tranent, or with the De Quincys of Winchester, Winton, and Tranent, whose boundary extended on the south from Winton to Inveresk, and on the north from Seton along the Forth to Pinkie Burn, and whose period of possession between the families extended from 1124 to 1295; or with the Setons, their immediate successors, whose family only helped to enlarge the boundaries by adding their own?

The Setons were ever a warrior race, and always powerful enough to hold their own against the Homes or any rival house when the trial came, and throughout their whole history from the days of Robert the Bruce, when they acquired these estates, up to the great confiscation of 1715, we never hear of a Home or any rival proprietor encroaching upon them.

That the Tower of Preston was constructed during the early part of the 14th century there is little doubt, and that it had been constructed by a scion of the house of Seton few would be hard to convince. Indeed, we find that Chalmers, in his "Caledonia, " describes Preston Tower as "an ancient fortalice of the Setons, " but unfortunately he gives no date as to its construction, nor any further information concerning it.
If a Seton built the Tower, seeing that the family acquired these estates during the last war-throes of the 13th century, it could not possibly be built till the beginning of the 14th, and during the 14th century the name of Lydell steps in.  Crawford, in his "MS. Baronage, " says "the estate of Preston came into the possession of a cadet of the Hamiltons of Fingalton, by his marriage, towards the end of the 14th century, with Jane, daughter and heiress of Sir James Lydell of Preston. " Crawford gives his information on the authority of Aikman the historian, but no further explanation from either is forthcoming; and the family papers having been destroyed during the conflagration of the Tower in 1544, it is now impossibe to obtain the corroborative evidence which they might have supplied. Seeing that Aikman makes his assertion boldly that "Sir James Lydell was of Preston, " it seems but fair to take for granted that he had good grounds for his assertion.  Assuming these points to be correct, we would only add, it is very probable that Sir James Lydell married a daughter of the house of Seton, had the lands of Preston with her as her portion, and built the Tower.

From the accession of this first Hamilton to the Tower and estate of Preston, we are also left in darkness through the conflagration of the Tower in 1544, when the family papers were destroyed, concerning his three successors. These three would have carried the family history entirely over the 15th into the early part of the 16th century, when David Hamilton, the fifth in succession, turns up. This David married Janet, a daughter of Sir William Bailie of Lamington, 1540, and lie it was who resided at the Tower during the conflagration.
George Hamilton, the sixth in succession, was born in 1542, two years previous to the destruction of the Tower, and he married, in 1563, Barbara Cockburn, a daughter of the Cockburns of Ormiston.

George is said to have been, like his father David, a staunch Reformer, and yet, like the Hamiltons in general, a firm supporter of the cause of Queen Mary and her faction. That he had got into trouble with his neighbour, Lord Seton, is evident, and that he had been the sufferer is no less sure, though what his trouble amounted to, or how it was brought about, no hint is given. Previous to 23rd March 1587 we find he had become so physically disabled that he was permitted by the king's authority on that date " to remane and abyde at hame frae all hosts and weirs, and also from all compearance upon assysis and inquests during his lifetime. "  Latterly he seems to have got the better of his physical disability, so far at least that he was able to attend church. The records of the Presbytery of Haddington show that he was summoned in 1592 before the Presbytery on account of non-attendance at the church of Tranent, to which parish Prestonpans was still attached. In answer to repeated citations from the Presbytery, he alleged that " he dared not pass thro' Lord Seton's grounds be terror of his life. "  On being afterwards further pressed by the Presbytery " to submit himself to reason as became ane Christian, and to take the communion in token of reconciliation, " being assured at the same time of a safe conduct from Lord Seton, he still declined, declaring " that in respect of the great injuries done to him, and of his mutilation by David Seton, " he would " neither hear nor receive any of David's offers unto the time that landit men subscribed with him for performance thereof. "  This was the same David Seton, evidently, who was chamberlain to Lord Seton, the Earl of Winton; had a habitation in the house known as the Royal George in Tranent, and became notorious through his servant girl Gilies Duncan in the " Annals of Witchcraft. " It was quite apparent from the foregoing that George Hamilton had no confidence in the great "witch finder, " he would have none of his safe-conduct passes. But the Presbytery of Haddington held " it was nae excuse. "

The foregoing incident is treated of in certain works as culminating in a great feud between the houses of Seton and Hamilton, whereas it turns out to have been simply a private quarrel between the good laird of Preston and the notoriously bad chamberlain to the Earl of Winton. But there were others besides the laird of Preston not attending church at this period, for the Presbytery goes on to complain: " It was not this twalmonth as it suld be; because of the variances within the parochin, many vices lay over untried, especially in the Pannis. " The goodfolks of the Pannis, however, complained there was no room in Tranent church for them, and they would not attend there, neither to hear the preaching nor to come under the ban of the church for their misdeeds. " They got a minister of their own about 1595, and a church shortly afterwards, and it was this same George Hamilton who gave the free grant of land to Davidson in 1596 whereon to build a church, a manse, and a school.

The Tower was quickly restored to all its former ruggedness and reoccupied, and George Hamilton was its proud possessor when Prestonpans, in 1606, was formed into a parish.  George was succeeded by his brother Sir John Hamilton. This was he who, in 1617, obtained from James VI. charters erecting the villages of Preston and Prestonpans severally into burghs of baronies, with the usual privileges pertaining thereto.
In 1647 Thomas Hamilton was retoured heir of entail and provision of the late John Hamilton of Preston nepotis sui patris, and it was during this Sir Thomas's proprietorship and occupancy that Cromwell fell foul of the Tower in 1650 and burned it.
That there had been a feverishly quick succession of lairds at Preston during this period is very apparent, and that Thomas had not long survived the destruction of the Tower is evident, for we find the estates almost immediately in possession of James de Preston, or Hamilton, and the Tower again restored and occupied by him. But his occupancy also was of short duration, for during his residence there in 1663 the Tower was accidentally set on fire and destroyed, never more to be occupied or inhabited except by the bats and the owls of Preston.

On 2nd June 1667 another Thomas Hamilton came in to the estate, in succession to his uncle Sir James de Preston, and this said Thomas enjoyed the barony till after the Restoration.  Sir William, evidently eldest son of Sir Thomas, succeeded his father, but having no home at the Tower it is questionable if he ever took any special interest in the village. Among the earliest notices we have of Sir William is his figuring in 1685 as a lieutenant to Rumbold, one of Argyll's officers, and as such supporting the expedition of Argyll of that date. About 1695 96 Sir William died, leaving no issue.
Robert Hamilton, brother of William, succeeded, or at all events ought to have succeeded, to the baronetcy and estate of Preston. He had several sisters—(see " Old Session-house Panels "), —but he was the last male of that line of the Hamiltons of Preston. He had been born and brought up amid troublous times, and like many of his compeers seems to have been of a curiously querulous temperament, and yet considering all things this is little to be wondered at. He had witnessed in his time the church of his native land, newly out of the throes of Popery, established under a Presbyterian form of government. Again, he had beheld the overthrow of Presbyterianism, and Episcopacy thrust upon a very unwilling people. Further, he had borne witness to the great revolution when Episcopacy was overthrown and the Presbyterian form of government again established, and during all these years of trial and trouble he had played the part of anything but a disinterested spectator.  Robert Hamilton was not one of those who believed in the "head"of the State being also the "head" of the Church. He held that James may be king of the State, but Christ must be king of the Church. James continued to form and fashion the government of the Church in keeping with his own convenience, and Hamilton protested at all times vigorously against imperial interference.

At an early period of his life he embraced the cause of that sadly persecuted race the Covenanters, and when they were debarred in the towns and the villages from worshipping their Maker according to the dictates of their own consciences, he led them out to the hillsides, to the moors, and to the glens, that they might hold their religious services without restriction or fear of interruption. Hunted like wild beasts over the moors, he accompanied them, seeking shelter from their merciless persecutors in the caves of the earth, or hiding amid the mists on the mountains.
He was associated with Cameron in his crusade against " the indulgences and those who accepted them. " He was leader of the band which, in 1679, published the " Declaration " and burned certain Acts of Parliament at Rutherglen. He commanded the Covenanters in their successful skirmish with the dragoons at Drumclog, and continued to occupy the same position till the disaster at Bothwell. After the defeat at Bothwell he escaped to Holland, where he remained till after the Revolution. But he was outlawed in his absence, his property confiscated, and himself condemned to death. For about ten years he lived a wandering and uncertain life, being sometimes quite dependent on the charity of strangers.
Robert Hamilton returned to his native land in 1689, but, notwithstanding all he had suffered, he was still the same stern, unyielding covenanter. Rather than conform to any form of Church government in which a king was the supposed head, he still elected to hear the word of God proclaimed in barns or by the wayside, or, when hunted like a wild beast, in glens among the mountains.

In the Sanquhar Declaration, 1692, he and his persecuted associates describe themselves as " a poor, wasted, misrepresented remnant of the suffering anti-popish, anti-prelatic, anti-erastian, anti-sectarian, true Presbyterian Church of Scotland. We disown the publishing of that ' Declaration of His Highness William, Prince of Orange, ' and espousing it as the state of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland's quarrel, while he was, and yet is, surrounded in council by an army, and by many of the old inveterate enemies of Christ's cause and people. We declare the refusal of our concurrence with the course now on foot, it being no way concerted according to the ancient plea of the Scottish Covenanters, or the Covenanted Reformation in England, Scotland, and Ireland; but instead thereof, adjoining and concurring with the promoters of papacy, prelacy, malignancy, etc., in their designs, whereby the enemies of Christ are brought into places of greatest power and trust, instead of bringing the wheel of justice over them. "
His brother, Sir William, died some years after Robert's return from Holland, but he did not profit much, if at all, by the change. He was afterwards known as Sir Robert, but he steadfastly refused to take the necessary legal steps to obtain possession of the property, or seek to obtain the title.

The reason given for his contumacy is, " because in doing so he could not avoid recognising the existing government and the courts of law. " There is no doubt whatever that Sir Robert was in real earnest in refusing to bend the knee in supplication to king or government; but there were other reasons, some of which he would have found it exceedingly difficult to get over before he could find favour in the eyes of those in authority. For had he not been privy to the publication of the Declaration of 1692, in which the king and his government were disowned, and for which seditionary act he and several others had already been arrested and imprisoned?
Sir Robert was ultimately brought before the Justiciary Court for the part he had played in the " Declaration, " but he refused to own the court, or plead before it. He would not swerve from the position he had taken up, and was sent back to prison. But after a while the authorities, thinking they had nothing to fear from such a man, ordered his release.
On the 21st of October 1701, Sir Robert Hamilton, still in the prime of life, died at Bo'ness after a lingering illness.
It is not recorded that Robert ever paid a visit to his paternal estate at Preston, either during his youth or his years of maturity. Indeed, if he did not form an acquaintanceship with the village and villagers when a boy, it may be safely set down that he never approached it after he got into the whirl of religious controversy, and his brother Sir William being proprietor during nearly both of their lifetimes, he had all the less cause to approach it.
Sir Robert left a written testimony behind him, and among other items in it was a clause to this effect: —" I die a true Protestant, and, to my knowledge, a reformed Presbyterian. "

With the death of Sir Robert ended the direct male line of that ancient family, but the family and the name were not yet extinct. We find a Dame Rachel Nicolson (Lady Preston) taking a great interest in the parish. She died in 1716. Another titled lady, Anna Hamilton, also took an interest in the parish. She married Gilbert Burnet, and died in 1718. And yet another is supposed to have married Sir James Oswald, Lord Provost of Edinburgh. These three are supposed to have been sisters of the last Sir William and Sir Robert Hamilton of Preston: and it must have been through the youngest of these, the wife of Sir James Oswald, that his son, Dr Oswald, entitled nephew to Sir Robert Hamilton, became temporary proprietor of the estate—yea, temporary proprietor, because a private arrangement was made with him before taking possession, " that, should a covenanted king surmount the throne, the estate would return to the Hamiltons. " It must have been with his aunts, these sisters of Sir William and Sir Robert, that Dr Oswald made the private arrangement.
" With the death of Sir Robert, who was unmarried, " says Veitch in his "Life of Sir William Hamilton, " "closed the main line of the House of Preston, and the family fell to be represented by Robert Hamilton of Airdrie, who was fifth in the main line from John, second son of Sir Robert Hamilton the seventh of Preston, who died before the year 1522. "

There is evidently a slight mistake here. We find that David, who was married about 1540 to Janet, a daughter of Sir William Bailie of Lamington, was the fifth Hamilton of Preston. His son George, born in 1542, was the sixth of the race, and John his brother, who obtained charters from James VI. for the two villages of Preston and Prestonpans, was the seventh Hamilton in succession at Preston. The only Robert of Preston we know of was the Covenanter. He was the twelfth in succession, and died about two hundred years after the Robert mentioned by Veitch.
We lose the family history of the second, third, and fourth Hamiltons of Preston entirely through the conflagration of 1544; but as David, who was married about 1540, must have been born about 1520 at latest, the Sir Robert referred to by Veitch, who died previous to 1522, would seem rather to have been the fourth in succession, and father to Sir David. If this were so, it would reduce the number of Hamiltons of Preston awanting to only two.
" Dr William Hamilton, " continues Veitch, " Professor of Botany and Anatomy in the University of Glasgow, was a Cadet of the Hamiltons of Airdrie, near Glasgow, who again were a branch of the Hamiltons of Preston and Fingalton, and the tradition was that, since the extinction of the direct male line of that most ancient house, they—that is the Airdrie branch—were entitled, as its representatives, to bear its titles and honours.
" Hitherto, however, no attempt had been made to prove the claim, which was of the less importance as it did not include the lands of Preston, these having been disposed of by their last owners.

"The traditional connection of the Hamiltons of Airdrie with the Hamiltons of Preston was destined to influence the imagination of young William Hamilton, son of Dr William, who latterly became Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of Edinburgh, and it was left to him, as we shall see, to trace the precise descent and assume the hereditary honours of the historical house of Preston.
"A Dr Robert Hamilton of Airdrie, cousin to William, was at this period the recognised head of the family, and the traditional claim to the Preston baronetcy rested with him, but he had allowed his own estate to get out of his hands. This cousin died in 1799.
" During 1813, young Hamilton, " continues Veitch, " is continually in correspondence from Edinburgh with his mother. In one letter he says, ' I have been working a good deal in the register office and have accumulated a good mass of curious information about the house of Preston. I have found above a score of deeds establishing of Sir William, etc.

" It was as representing his late cousin Robert Hamilton, laird of Airdrie, that Sir William claimed and obtained the family honour of Preston. "
There is a curious story abroad in connection with this claim. It may be right or wrong, we give it as we got it. When Sir William's advocate was in the act of bringing evidence before the " Lords" in order to prove his claim, among many other Christian names of Hamiltons he came on one Methuselah—when " Stop, stop ! " ejaculated the presiding judge, " if you and the court are satisfied that even Methuselah was a Hamilton, I am more than satisfied that this William Hamilton deserves the baronetcy of Preston, " and thus it was decided amid a hearty outburst of laughter.
In order to give the old family name once more a standing at Preston, in 1819 Sir William acquired by purchase the old Tower and garden surrounding it. Sir William enjoyed the honours of the ancient barony of Preston for a good many years. He died on 6th May 1856.
To the long roll of great and patriotic men which this ancient family has given to the history of Scotland, must now be added that of the present representative of the family, General Sir William Stirling Hamilton, Bart., R. A.