We turn to the rolls, and find, as usual, that not two, but three, tenants (_ut supra_) were recalcitrant in the 18th year, and that the Earl, in the 21st (1175), did not pay a penny of his assessment (84½ fees), but was forgiven the whole of it.[331] Not content with his own confusion, Mr. Hall proceeds to assign to others errors which they neither have made, nor would dream of making. He even asserts that Mr. Eyton and I “maintain that the honour of Arundel was granted to William de Albini by Henry I.” (p. ccvii.), an assertion for which there is not the faintest shadow of foundation. Such a view would imply an absolute ignorance of all the facts of the case; and it was as foreign to Mr. Eyton[332] as it is to myself.[333] One cannot be expected to waste time over his theory that the baronies mentioned in these fragments were specially involved in debt, which is a mere phantasy; but we may note, as the date is of importance, that “Avelina de Ria” was “compelled to atone” for her offence, in making her son a knight, by a heavy fine, not “in the 15th year,” but in the 14th.[334] In the same paragraph (p. ccx.) we are told that “this barony, like the honour of Arundel, was still unable to contribute towards the next Scutage, of 1171.”[335] As a matter of fact, it paid at once £30, out of £35, the total for which it was liable,[336] a very creditable proportion; while the honour of Arundel was not even charged with any payment for this Scutage, which was only assessed on those “qui nec abierunt in Hybernia,” etc. But enough of this error and confusion. If the reader is tempted to grow weary, what must be the feelings of the writer, who has thus to remove, brick by brick, this vast edifice of error, so perversely and wantonly erected, before the simple facts can be brought to the light of day. It is weary, it is thankless work; and yet it has to be accomplished. I am tempted to quote these apposite remarks from the critical articles by Mr. Thomas Bond on a no less misleading work: Numberless difficulties are suggested where none really exist, and possibilities and probabilities unaccompanied by proofs are offered for their solution.... The narrative is so diluted and confused that it is difficult to follow it shortly and comprehensively. I can, therefore, only select some of the most remarkable errors and notice them _seriatim_, quoting the author’s own words in order to avoid the risk of unintentional misrepresentation.... It may be asked, Where is the difficulty which requires these strange, far-fetched ‘probabilities’ for its solution?... All this is fanciful and mere imagination.... In reply to all these supposed ‘possibilities,’ let us turn to certainties.... I have thus laid before the reader some of the numerous inaccuracies into which the author of this work has fallen, and have stated some of the singular theories he has advanced.[337]