for the clergy, and which, men argued, was quite ample for their support. Forty-two millions were to be appropriated to the payment of the debt, and the balance of thirty millions would, if judiciously distributed in loans among the chief cities of France, develop trade and increase the general wealth of the country, while the interest would suffice to pay the army and keep the fortresses in repair. To carry out such a sweeping confiscation required a strong government, and then it could be done only at the risk of a revolution; but the very proposal made the clergy more willing to take their share of the public burdens, and they offered not only to redeem at their own cost all the royal domains pawned or mortgaged by the crown, but to pay annually for six years a tribute of sixteen hundred thousand livres. The queen-regent having thus obtained the necessary supplies, and a promise of more, the popular demands (with a few trivial exceptions) were evaded, but liberty of conscience was promised. If the meetings at Orleans and Pontoise did not effect much good, they materially promoted the interests of the Huguenots by recognizing the great principle of toleration, though more than two centuries were to pass away before it was fully carried out. As soon as the meetings at Pontoise were ended, all eyes were turned to the approaching colloquy to be held at Poissy. The clergy, in return for their liberal contribution toward the burdens of the state, had called for the thorough execution of the Edict of July. “_Non impetrarunt_,” says Beza laconically. The regent took the money, but answered their prayer in very vague terms. What she really thought of the matters in dispute between the two religious parties may be gathered from her instructions to Cardinal Ferrara to be laid before the pope (4th August, 1561):--“The number of those professing the Reformed religion is so great, and their party is so powerful, that they are no longer to be put down by severe laws or force of arms. They are neither anabaptists nor libertines; they believe all the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, and therefore many are of opinion that they ought not to be cut off from communion with the Church. What danger can there be in removing the images from the churches, and doing away with certain useless forms in the administration of the sacraments? It would farther be advantageous to allow to all persons the communion under both kinds, and to permit divine worship to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue.”[238]