The first of these conclusions has a special bearing on the theories propounded by Mr Pell with so much ingenuity and learning.[35] I have shown, in an essay criticizing these theories,[36] that the case of Clifton, to which Mr Pell attached so much importance,[37] is nothing, in all probability, but one of Domesday's blunders, of which I gave, in that essay, other instances. So, too, in the case of his own Manor of Wilburton, Mr Pell accepted without question the reading '_six_ ploughlands', as representing the 'primary return',[38] although that reading is only found in the most corrupt of the three versions of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, while the two better versions (B and C texts) agree with Domesday Book, and with the abbreviated return at the end of the A text itself (Tib. A. VI fo. 67, _b_, 1), in giving the ploughlands as _seven_. Really it is nothing but waste of time to argue from a reading which is only found in one out of five MSS., and that one the most corrupt. This brings me to the existence and the value of duplicate entries in Domesday. Mr Hamilton describes as 'a curious reading' the words in the I.C.C., 'sed soca remanebat _Harlestone_'. Now it so happens that in this case we have five separate versions of the original entry: one in the I.C.C., one in the I.E., and three in Domesday Book. Here they are side by side: _I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ _D.B._ (p. 46) (p. 106) (I. 200, (_ibid._, (I. 191, _a_, 2) in margin) _a_, 2) Et potuit Potuit Recedere Vendere Potuit recedere recedere cum terra potuit, recedere sine quo voluit cum terra sua sua potuit, sed soca licentia ejus, sed soca absque ejus sed soca Abbati sed soca remanebat licentia, remansit remansit. remansit Harlestone. sed semper æcclesiæ. Abbati. remansit socha ejus in ecclesia sancte Ædel' ut hund testantur. The value of such collation as this ought to be self-evident. It is not only that we thus find four out of five MSS. to be against the reading '_Harlestone_' (which, indeed, to any one familiar with the survey is obviously a clerical error), but that here and elsewhere we are thus afforded what might almost be termed a bilingual inscription. We learn, for instance, that the Domesday scribe deemed it quite immaterial whether he wrote 'recedere cum terra ejus', or 'vendere' or 'recedere sine licentia'. Consequently, these phrases were all identical in meaning.[39]