Differences had already arisen between Wallenstein and the League. It was understood that the defeat of the northern rebels would lead to confiscations in the north, as the defeat of Frederick had led to confiscations in the south. To part at least of the land of one of the defeated princes the Elector of Mentz laid claim. Wallenstein wished to have it all for George of Lüneburg, who, Lutheran as he was, had held high command in the imperial army. [Sidenote: §2. Wallenstein advocates religious equality.] The quarrel was more than a mere personal dispute. The League wished to pursue the old policy of pushing forward the interests of the Catholic clergy under cover of legality. Wallenstein wished Catholic and Protestant, already united in his army, to be equally united in the Empire. Rebellion would then be the only punishable crime; loyalty, and especially the loyalty of his own officers, the only virtue to be rewarded. [Sidenote: § 3. Comes into collision with the League.] Another question between the two powers reached almost as deeply. The League demanded that Wallenstein should support his army upon supplies taken from the Protestants alone. Wallenstein asserted his right, as the Emperor's general, to quarter his men where he would, and to levy contributions for their maintenance even on the territories of the League. [Sidenote: § 4. Wallenstein could not found unity.] For the first time for many a long year, a friendly voice had been heard urging the Emperor in the only wise direction. Ferdinand, turning aside from the promotion of a sectional policy, was, if he would listen to Wallenstein, to place the unity of the Empire above the interests of the princes, by resting it on the basis of religious equality. Unhappily that advice was tendered to him by a man who could not offer him security for the realization of so wise a policy. To stand above parties it is necessary to obtain the confidence of a nation, and how could men have confidence in Wallenstein? Durable institutions may be guarded by the sword. They cannot be founded by the sword. All that was known of Wallenstein in Germany was that he was master of an army more numerous and more oppressive than that of Tilly. German unity, coming in the shape of boundless contributions and extortions, and enforced by the example of starving peasants and burning villages, was not likely to prove very attractive. [Sidenote: § 5. Wallenstein's conference with Eggenberg.]