There were two Gordons of Earlstoun, father and son.  They were descended of an ancient family in the west of Scotland, and their progenitors were believed to have been favourers of the reformed doctrine, and possessed of a translation of the Bible, as early as the days of Wickliffe.  William Gordon, the father, was, in 1663, summoned before the privy council, for keeping conventicles in his house and woods.  By another act of council, he was banished out of Scotland; but the sentence was never put into execution.  In 1667, Earlstoun was turned out of his house, which was converted into a garrison for the king’s soldiers.  He was not in the battle of Bothwell Bridge, but was met, hastening towards it, by some English dragoons, engaged in the pursuit, already commenced.  As he refused to surrender, he was instantly slain.  WILSON’S History of Bothwell Rising—­Life of Gordon of Earlston, in Scottish Worthies—­WODROW’S History, Vol.  II.  The son, Alexander Gordon of Earlstoun, I suppose to be the hero of the ballad.  He was not a Cameronian, but of the more moderate class of presbyterians, whose sole object was freedom of conscience, and relief from the oppressive laws against non-conformists.  He joined the insurgents, shortly after the skirmish at Loudoun-hill.  He appears to have been active in forwarding the supplication sent to the duke of Monmouth.  After the battle, he escaped discovery, by flying into a house at Hamilton, belonging to one of his tenants, and disguising himself in female attire.  His person was proscribed, and his estate of Earlstoun was bestowed upon Colonel Theophilus Ogilthorpe, by the crown, first in security for L.5000, and afterwards in perpetuity.—­FOUNTAINHALL, p. 390.  The same author mentions a person tried at the circuit court, July 10, 1683, solely for holding intercourse with Earlstoun, an intercommuned (proscribed) rebel.  As he had been in Holland after the battle of Bothwell, he was probably accessory to the scheme of invasion, which the unfortunate earl of Argyle was then meditating.  He was apprehended upon his return to Scotland, tried, convicted of treason, and condemned to die; but his fate was postponed by a letter from the king, appointing him to be reprieved for a month, that he might, in the interim, be tortured for the discovery of his accomplices.  The council had the unusual spirit to remonstrate against this illegal course of severity.  On November 3, 1653, he received a farther respite, in hopes he would make some discovery.  When brought to the bar, to be tortured (for the king had reiterated his commands), he, through fear or distraction, roared like a bull, and laid so stoutly about him, that the hangman and his assistant could hardly master him.  At last he fell into a swoon, and, on his recovery, charged General Dalziel and Drummond (violent tories), together with the duke of Hamilton, with being the leaders of the fanatics.  It was generally thought, that he affected this extravagant behaviour, to invalidate