(Vol. iv., pp. 115. 196. 278.; Vol. v., p. 129.)
The quotations I have produced on the question, Which are _the Three
Estates of the Realm_? appear {540} to CANON. EBOR. "quite to support his
own positions." I must therefore again ask leave to defend the view which I
advanced in Vol. iv., p. 115., and will endeavour, whether it be a right or
wrong one, to express my arguments in support of it so definitely and
distinctly as not again to leave room for any misapprehension of them. To
adopt CANON. EBOR.'s threefold division:--
1. _The Three Estates of the Realm are the Nobility, the Clergy in
Convocation, and the Commons._ In this order they are ranked in the collect
I quoted, and in which they are described as "assembled in parliament;" i.
e. _en plein parlement_. The following extract plainly bears out my view:
"And that this doctrine (viz. that the Clergy are an _extrinsic part_
of Parliament, or an _Estate of the Realm_) was still good, and the
language much the same, as low as the Restoration of Charles II., the
_Office_ then anew set out for the 5th of November shews, where mention
is made of 'the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of this realm, then
assembled in Parliament:' for to say that by 'the Clergy of this
realm,' my Lords the Bishops only are intended, were so absurd a gloss,
that even Dr. Wake's pen would, I believe, be ashamed of it. And if
they were then rightly said to be 'assembled in Parliament,' they may
as rightly be said to be so assembled still: and if 'assembled in
Parliament,' why not 'a member of Parliament?' to those intents and
purposes, I mean, for which they are assembled in it."--Atterbury's
_Rights, Powers, and Privileges of Convocation_, 2nd edit., p. 305.