FURTHER NOTES CONCERNING SIR WALTER SCOTT 213 



12th century. It is possible, as one of the royal family, that he 

 may have been already Archbishop of York when David 

 brought his colony of Cistercian monks from Eivaulx in 

 Yorkshire to the later Melrose. The pasturage of Wedale, the 

 district between the Gala and the Leader, had been given up to 

 the monks of Melrose, on that occasion, by the distant Arch- 

 bishop of St. Andrews (who nevertheless retained a residence at 

 Bowland, on the frontiers of the archdeaconry of Lothian.) 

 What points to the name of the hill having some connection 

 with the abbey, is there being a William's Well on the slope 

 above the abbey-church, an unfailing cold spring, now dis- 

 tributed through a pump at the east end of the town. 



There is another consideration about the burial of Alexander 

 II. at Melrose (it is stated, in a side chapel) ; seeing that 

 Daufermline was the royal burying-place, and that on the other 

 hand his father William the Lion had been buried at Arbroath, 

 in the abbey dedicated by him to Thomas a Becket, which is not 

 only north of the Forth but of the Tay, it is possible that there 

 may have been a political significance in his successor's being 

 buried between Edinburgh and the English border, and on the 

 old frontier between Cumbria and Lothian. 



The muster at Caddonlee was for an invasion of England, so 

 it is possible the idea may have been that of " birsing yont." 



I find that it was the Cistercian order who opposed St. 

 William's appointment ; it seems to have been a struggle 

 between them, St. Bernard beinj^ still alive, and the King of 

 England and his family. St. William seems to have died in 

 1154, having been treasurer of York before he was Archbishop. 

 I cannot anywhere find the exact date of his canonization, but 

 in a generation or two the animus would die away. 



One of the confusions which here and there impair the value 

 of Professor Yeitch's historical and legendary studies, is both 

 unjust to Sir Walter, and obscures a curious fact which would 

 have been of the highest interest to him, and perhaps hardlj' 

 less to Professor Veitch himself. 



The three ballads, in the latter part of the Border Minstrelsy^ 

 which Sir Walter calls the three parts of Thomas the Ehymer, 

 are quite diff'erent poems, with different histories. The first 

 would naturally have belonged to the second part of the 

 Minstrelsy, the romantic ballads from various old sources ; Sir 

 Wa;lter says he got it from a lady living near Earl&ton, and 



