London and Westminster together only returned eight. Chatham
at one time seemed to think that the corrupt boroughs might be got rid
of, but finally feared that such a change would cause a "public
convulsion," and proposed to counteract their effects by adding one
member to each of the county constituencies. After much hesitation he
also advocated a return to triennial parliaments.

Burke, on the other hand, and the Rockingham party generally were
opposed to any change in the constitutional machinery. The constitution
was altogether admirable in Burke's eyes; all that was wanted was the
removal of abuses, which hindered it from working well. Shorter
parliaments would, he argued, only lead to more frequent disorders and
increase the opportunities for corruption; he would have no change in
the system of representation, and held that a place bill would lower the
character of parliament by excluding from it many men of wealth, weight,
and talent. He strongly objected to the growing custom of sending
instructions to members, pointing out that members of parliament should
not be regarded as mere local delegates, but as representatives of the
nation, chosen by various constituent bodies. While he was opposed to
changes in the constitution, he laboured to bring parliament into a
sound state by reforms which allowed the publication of its proceedings,
improved the system of deciding the lawfulness of elections, and checked
the multiplication of places and pensions, as well as by other measures
of a like tendency. The opposition then differed amongst themselves:
Chatham and his followers held that some organic changes in the
constitution were necessary, and more or less sympathised with what
(though the name was not yet invented) may be called the radical party;
Burke and those under his influence railed at the bill of rights men,
deprecated organic changes, and advocated conservative reforms.

FOOTNOTES:

[76] Lord E. Fitzmaurice, _Life of Shelburne_, ii., 31-37.

[77] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Feb. 23, 1767, MS. Pitt Papers,
35.

[78] _Chatham Corr._, iii., 21, 134, 229-30.

[79] Burke's speeches on Jan. 9 and May 8, 1770, _Parl. Hist._, xvii.,
674, 1004-5.

[80] The ablest advocacy of the Franciscan authorship is in Sir L.
Stephen's article on "Francis" in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_; see also _English Historical Review_, iii. (1888), 233 _sq._
A claim is advanced for Temple in the _Grenville Papers_,