71 



jorm. . . . There are many banks or quasi-banks (as my 

 memory serves me; it is 15 to 20 years since I was there with 

 time to look about) at Hilton, which prohahly have a special 

 interest of their own, and that in connection with considerations 

 of mediseval economy, which is not too usually thought of as 

 recognisable, much more interesting." 



In 1889, I had printed the Ingleby Parish Register, into the 

 introduction to which I had embodied extracts from certain 

 documents contained in the Whitby Chartulary. On ^lage JX. 

 I had ventured to say, " Dr. Atkinson draws the inference that' 

 this confirmation of Guy de Balliol took place before A.D. 1138, 

 and the original grant, of course, still further back in time. 

 But in so doing he is inconsistent, etc." When my book ap- 

 peared, he wrote to me endeavouring to maintain his own con- 

 clusions, but re-examining the Baliol pedigree. On November 

 15th, 1889, he said, "The old existing pedigrees of Baliol are 

 nearly worthless by reason of tlieir being both notoriously im- 

 perfect and incorrect as well. Plantagenet Harrison's, which is 

 at my side as I write, is as little to be depended upon as Dug- 

 dale's. By far the best I am acquainted with is by LongstaiTe, 

 and certainly, compared with the others, is very good indeed. I 

 am inclined to think that, .=o far as any part of my note [in the 

 Whitby Chartalary] to Guido de Baliol's confirmation depends 

 on Dugijale's genealogy of the family, it is not much better than 

 waste paper. Thus, 1 know now that there was a Guy de Baliol, 

 who, before 1120, gave three churches (Stokesley being one of 

 them) to St Mary's at York for the souls of Ins wife Uionisia 

 and his nephew Bernard de Balliolo. I know, too, that there 

 was an early Wimund de Baliolo who is said (in Dodsworth's 

 Collections) to have had issue Guy, Bernard, Joceline and Hawise, 

 and who, beyond doubt, had a son Guy, and another son whose 

 name does not transpire. This Guy, who was still living in 1112, 

 and it is not (yet) known how much later, had issue a daughter 

 Hawise, with whom we at Whitby or Ingleby have nothing to 

 do. Guy's unnamed brother had issue Bernard, Joceline and 

 another son. This Bernard was still living in 1132, but was 

 dead before 1153. By his wife Matilda he had a son Guy, who 

 was acting as the head of the family in 1152; and. besides him, 

 other two sons, viz., Ingelram and Bernard, who (the latter) 

 married Agnes de Pincheneia, and made grants to Rievaulx sub- 

 sequently to 1161. This Bernard had a son Eustace, who in his 

 turn gave being (among other children, I believe) to a Hugo de 

 Baliol. The Guy first named, and his nephew Bernard toho suc- 

 ceeded him in the Barony, and the Hugo named last of all, are 

 the three main Baliols concerned in the charters you have taken 



