that with all his might and indeuour, would not preuent the mischiefe
and destruction hanging ouer the Commonwealth. He that withstandeth not
wrong when hee is able, is in as great fault, as if he destroyed the
Commonwealth. The preseruation of the people hath bene euer accompted
among all nations, for the very supreame Law. Are not the _Hanse_ townes
ashamed to maintaine and pretend a priuiledge, that is to say, a priuate
lawe against a publike and soueraigne lawe? Did euer any king or Prince
witting and waring, suffer such a kinde of trafike which should make his
enemie ouer mightie, and though hee did not disfurnish himselfe, yet
shoulde leaue himselfe more open vnto his furie, which otherwise were
like to be vnarmed and vnable to wage warre against him?

[Sidenote: The English and French enemies: Charles the fift a
confederate.]

In the yeere 1545. at which time the warres grew hotte betwixt the
kingdomes of England and Fraunce, when the subiects of _Charles_ the
Emperour the fift of that name of noble memorie, would needes haue had
free libertie of passage with all commodities into Fraunce, vnder
pretext of their Newtralitie, What was the Emperours answere being a
Prince of great equitie? Did he not openly pronounce that course of
theirs altogether vnlawfull? let the Contract it selfe concluded the 6.
day of April be lookt into.

[Sidenote: The Danes and Swethens enemies: the Hanse men confederats.]

When the Kings of Denmarke, and of Swethlande were at difference one
with another, was it permitted to these Hansemen to conuay freely any
thing into one of their kingdomes, which was not in deede ceased vpon &
confiscated, if it fel into the laps of the other, not hauing first