f the English reform bill carried with it as its
necessary sequel the success of similar bills for Scotland and Ireland.
In Scotland electoral abuses were so gross that reform was comparatively
simple, and that proposed, as Jeffrey, the lord advocate, frankly said,
"left not a shred of the former system". The nation, as a whole, gained
eight members, since its total representation was raised from forty-five
to fifty-three seats, thirty for counties and twenty-three for cities
and burghs. Two members were allotted to Edinburgh and Glasgow
respectively; one each to Paisley, Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, and
Greenock, as well as to certain groups of boroughs. Both the county and
burgh electorates were entirely transformed. The "old parchment
freeholders" in counties, many of whom owned not a foot of land, were
superseded by a mixed body of freeholders and leaseholders with real
though various qualifications. The electoral monopoly of town councils
was replaced by the enfranchisement of householders with a uniform
qualification of L10. A claim to representation on behalf of the
Scottish universities was negatived in the house of lords. The number of
representatives for Ireland was raised from 100 to 105. The
disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders was maintained against the
strenuous attacks of O'Connell and Sheil, but the introduction of the
L10 borough franchise amply balanced the loss of democratic influence in
counties. On the whole the transfer of power from class to class was
greater in Scotland and Ireland than in England itself, and in Ireland
this signified a corresponding transfer of power from protestants to
catholics. The rule of the priests was almost as absolute as ever until
it was checked for a while by a purely democratic movement, and the
Irish vote in the house of commons was generally cast on the radical
side.

[Pageheading: _RETROSPECT OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT._]

A calm retrospect of the reform movement, culminating in the acts of
1832, compels us to see how little the course of politics is guided by
reason, and how much by circumstances. Every argument employed in that
and the preceding year possessed equal force at the end of the
eighteenth century, and the benefits of reform might have been obtained
at a much smaller cost of domestic strife; nor can we doubt that, but
for the French revolution, these arguments would have prevailed. Whether
or not the sanguinary disruption of French society furthered the