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 |
