Valentinian and Valens granted complete toleration for all cults at the beginning of their reign in 364.

In 1598, however, he issued the Edict of Nantes, which granted circumscribed toleration to the Huguenots.

Each party was bent upon victory, and granted toleration only from necessity or prudence when the dissenting minority was strong enough to assert its rights.

The establishment of a constitutional monarchy in 1834 granted limited religious toleration to, and consequently led to the opening of an Anglican chapel in Lisbon.

In 1663, Charles II granted the colony a charter guaranteeing complete religious toleration.

In 1657, New Amsterdam granted religious toleration to Jews.

The Edict of Nantes, which granted toleration to the Huguenot minority in France, was revoked in 1685.

However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, granting toleration to all Christian groups and enjoining them to avoid actions which antagonized the others.

Its first article declared the "Roman Catholic Apostolic religion" the only state religion and granted legal toleration to all other religious confessions then present.

What was the point, the argument ran, of granting toleration to minorities if they then used it as licence to vilify everyone else?