Moreover, two entries were occasionally thrown into one, a dangerous plan for the clerks themselves, and one which may sometimes lead us to think that an entry is omitted when it is duly to be found under another head. Lastly, the compilers of Domesday Book had no such invaluable check for their work as was afforded in the original by entering first the assessment of the whole township, and then that of each of its component Manors separately. But of this more below.[27] The only wonder is that the omissions are, after all, so few. Perhaps even of these some may be only apparent. Hardwin's half-hide in _Burwell_ (p. 6) is wanting; so is Aubrey's half-virgate in _Badburgham_, according to Mr Hamilton (p. 36), but the oversight is his. A virgate held in Trumpington by a burgess of Cambridge (p. 51) would seem to be not forthcoming, but its position was somewhat anomalous.[28] Guy de Rembercurt held a hide and a virgate in _Haslingefield_ (p. 73), though we cannot find it in Domesday; and in _Witewelle_ (Outwell) two hides which were held by Robert, a tenant of Hardwin (p. 81), are similarly omitted, according to Mr Hamilton but will be found under 'Wateuuelle' (198, _b_, 2). There are cases in which the I.C.C. corrects D.B., cases in which D.B. corrects the I.C.C., and cases in which the I.C.C. corrects itself. There are also several cases of discrepancy between the two, in which we cannot positively pronounce which, if either, is right. A singular instance of both being wrong is found in the case of Soham. The assessment of this township was actually eleven hides, its four component holdings being severally assessed at nine and a half hides less six acres, half a hide, one hide, and six acres. The I.C.C. at first gives the total assessment as eleven hides and a half, while D.B. erroneously assesses the first of the four holdings at six hides and forty acres in one place, and nine hides and a half in the other, both figures being wrong. A most remarkable case of yet another kind is found in _Scelford_ (Shelford). Here the entry in I.C.C. agrees exactly with the duplicate entries found in D.B. Yet they both make nonsense.[29] But on turning to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ we obtain the correct version. As this is a very important and probably unique instance, the entries are here given in parallel columns: _Inq. Eliensis._ _Inq. Com. Cant._ _D.B._ i. 198 _D.B._ i. 198 (_a_) 2. (_a_) 2.