‘Then Saunder, sit there, The lying’st Knave in Christendome. If thou hadst beene borne blind, Thou might’st as well haue knowne all our Names, As thus to name the seuerall Colours we doe weare. Sight may distinguish of Colours: But suddenly to nominate them all, It is impossible. My Lords, Saint _Albone_ here hath done a Miracle: And would ye not thinke it, Cunning to be great, That could restore this Cripple to his Legges againe.’ Pope alters the first four lines thus: ‘Saunder, sit there, the lying’st knave in christendom. If thou hadst been born blind, Thou might’st as well know all our names, as thus To know the several colours we do wear.’ The following is Hanmer’s reading of the first six lines: ‘Then, Saunder, sit thou there, the lying’st knave In christendom. If thou hadst been born blind, Thou might’st as well know all our names, as thus To know the several colours we do wear. Sight may distinguish colours: true, but suddenly To nominate them all, it is impossible.’ In the rest of the scene several arbitrary changes have been made by different editors for the sake of the metre. NOTE VI. II. 2. 45, 46. The first Folio has the whole passage thus: ‘His eldest Sister, _Anne_, My Mother being Heire vnto the Crowne, Marryed _Richard_, Earle of Cambridge, Who was to _Edmond Langley_, _Edward_ the thirds fift Sonnes Sonne; By her I clayme the Kingdome: She was Heire to _Roger_, Earle of March, Who was the Sonne of _Edmond Mortimer_ Who marryed _Phillip_, sole Daughter Vnto _Lionel_, Duke of Clarence.’ The later Folios follow the first, except that in the seventh line they read ‘She then was’ for ‘She was.’ Rowe read, ‘Who was son to Edmond Langley,’ but made no other change; and Pope followed him. Theobald read: ‘Who was the son to Edmond Langley, Edward the Third’s fifth son.’-- and arranged the following lines as they are found in our text. Hanmer: ‘Who was the son of Edmund Langley, Edward the Third’s fifth son’s son, and by her I claim the kingdom, for she then was heir To Roger &c.’ It was Capell who arranged the earlier lines of the speech as we have given them. Steevens, as usual, adopted his arrangement without acknowledging the obligation. Mr Collier, in his first edition, read: ‘Married Richard Earl of Cambridge; who was To Edmond Langley Edward the third’s fifth son, son.’ NOTE VII. III. 1. We retain here Salisbury and Warwick among the persons who enter to the parliament, because they are found both in the Folios and Quartos. In the latter their ‘exeunt’ is also marked. Capell was the first to omit them because they do not speak throughout the scene. NOTE VIII. III. 2. 11. The murderer’s answer _’Tis_, which Rowe changed to _Yes_ without authority, shows that we ought to retain the _Is_ of the first Folio notwithstanding the grammatical inaccuracy. In the Quartos the murderer says, ‘All things _is_ hansome now my Lord.’ NOTE IX.