72 



from the "Whitby Chartulary. There is, I believe, no more doubt 

 about all this than about anything else that rests upon clear 

 written evidence. Now, as Guy de Baliol, the first, was, it 

 would api^ear to be certain, dead before 1132, you will see there 

 is some reason for giving an early date to his eonfirmation of 

 Adam FitzViel's grant of the mill. The second Guy's confirma- 

 tion of his uncle's and his father's grants — about 1152 — may be 

 safely taken as dating his accession to the family estates, etc., 

 and is too late for the Whitby deed. Who the clerical Hugo 

 was does not appear. He may probably be accounted for on the 

 same principal as that on which two Geoffreys de Percy existed, 

 brothers (their names are both in one deed, if I remember), the 

 explanation being that one was base-born, and took orders." On 

 December 9th following, he wrote, " As to Guido de Baliol, I am 

 unable to clear up all the difficulties, but I can see my way, I 

 think. I am clear as far as this — that he was the second baron 

 of the name ; that he was the son of the first Bernard, and 

 brother — elder brother (as everything almost made me think 

 when I wrote my note in the Wh'tby book, Dugdale & Co. to 

 the contrary, notwithstanding) moreover — of the second Bernard. 

 The elder Bernard was still living in, and it may be after, 1145. 

 He gave a confirmation after this and before 1153. His son Guy, 

 (elder brother of Bernard II , as aforesaid), confirmed his father's 

 gift to St. Mary, at York, ' about 1152,' as is concluded by Mr. 

 Long-taffe — a man from whom I do not care to differ lightly in 

 such matters. It is, however, possible that he may have become 

 the head of the family before that, though not much before, and 

 about the time of his brother's succession we know nothing pre- 

 cise. The grants to Rievaulx were made after, or (?) in, 1161 ; 

 and he confirmed the grants of his father already, as previously, 

 confirmed by his brother Guy, as late as between 1186 and 1189. 

 If I can get a day at York before long I will examine the 

 authority on which several of these statements are founded. But 

 these facts are quite clear — that he (our Guy) was not the son, but 

 the grandson of the Guy named by Dugdale ; that he was the 

 elder, not the younger brother of Bernard II. ; and that his con- 

 firmation of Adam's gift of Kirkby Church must date some- 

 where between 1147 and (c.) 1152 ; also that he is not named 

 by Dugdale at all. If all this is authentic, as I think it is, the 

 Whitby deeds enable us to add two items to the genealogy — 

 perhaps more, on enquiry. Your criticism as to the dates is 

 mainly just." 



Discussing the date of the Cleveland Burial Mounds, Atkin- 

 son writes, November 15th, 1889, '' Nearly twenty years ago, 

 and on the ground that, in the whole series of Cleveland inter- 



