Various alterations were subsequently made in the Bill, to prevent its interfering unnecessarily with the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. The second reading was moved on the 14th of March. Mr. Cardwell refused his assent to the second reading, believing that, by supporting the measure, he would affront Protestant England, and do much to render Ireland ungovernable. Lord Palmerston supported the Bill, because churches were like corporate bodies, encroaching; because it would supply an omission in the Act of 1829; and as the Church of Rome obeyed that Act, she would also obey this. Sir James Graham, on the contrary, expressed his conviction that the passing of this Bill would be a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and then the Dissenters must look about them. Mr. Gladstone ably criticised the Bill, and concluded as follows:--"For three hundred years the Roman Catholic laity and secular clergy--the moderate party--had been struggling, with the sanction of the British Government, for this very measure, the appointment of diocesan bishops, which the extreme party--the regulars and cardinals at the Court of Rome--had been all along struggling to resist. The present legislation would drive the Roman Catholics back upon the Pope, and, teasing them with a miniature penal law, would alienate and estrange them. Religious freedom was a principle which had not been adopted in haste, and had not triumphed till after half a century of agonising struggles; and he trusted we were not now going to repeat Penelope's process without her purpose, and undo a great work which had been accomplished with so much difficulty." Mr. Disraeli expressed his sentiments, and those of his party, upon the general question and the particular measure. He denied that the Pope was without power. He was a prince of very great, if not the greatest power, his army being a million of priests; and was such a power to be treated as a Wesleyan Conference, or like an association of Scottish Dissenters? Sir George Grey having replied to the objections of Mr. Gladstone and others, the House divided, when the second reading was carried by a still greater majority than the first, the numbers being--for the bill, 438; against it, 95; majority 343.