And rob in the behalf of charity."
with the following note; the ordinary reading is
"'For we would give much to use violent thefts.'"
To use thefts is clearly not Shakspearian. Perhaps count or give might be omitted, supposing that one word had been substituted for another in the manuscript, without the erasure of the first written; but this omission will not give us a meaning. We have ventured to transpose count and omit as:
"For we would give much, to count violent thefts."
We have now a clear meaning: it is as lawful because we desire to give much, to count violent thefts as holy, "and rob in the behalf of charity."
Mr. Collier also lays aside his aversion to vary from the old copy, and makes a bold innovation: he reads,—
"Do not count it holy
To hurt by being just: it is as lawful,
For us to give much count to violent thefts,