An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" theory, Mr. Yeatman has further advanced a view which is quite peculiar to himself. So far as this view can be understood, it "dimidiates" the first earl (d. 1176), and converts him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and a son who died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p. 281),[922] then as "probable" (p. 288),[923] lastly, as "possible" (p. 285).[924] But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to be attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to that conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in relation to the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before it is rejected some reason should be shown for doing so." Yet the only scrap of "evidence" given us is the incidental remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is usually assigned as that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel." Now, this is directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), and Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.[925] Again, it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel "died the 3rd (_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto is the authority for the statement that William Albini, Earl of Arundel, died the 17th (_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the actual words of the chronicler being given as "iv. die Octobus" (_sic_). Now, all three dates, as a matter of fact, are wrong, though this is only introduced to show how the laborious researches of the author are marred by a carelessness which is fatal to his work. Let us now turn to this argument:— "The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in 1160 by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the statement that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he too was styled Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that the first (_sic_) Earl of Arundel was so created[926] in 1176" (p. 284). This argument is based on the fact that the house was "founded in 1160." The _Monasticon_ editors indeed say that this was "about" the date, but, unluckily, a moment's examination of the list of witnesses to the charter shows that its date must be much later,[927] while Mr. Eyton unhesitatingly assigns it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore, falls to the ground. Another point on which the author insists as of great importance is that the first earl was never Earl of _Sussex_:—