There is one point, further, which I should like briefly to touch upon before leaving this matter of essential or non-essential, for it shews how very carelessly or unscrupulously the Commissioners have done their work, and made their Report. The citation, which in its commencement they give from the Commission appointing them, contains these words: that “it is expedient that a full and impartial enquiry should be made into the matters aforesaid,” viz. ornaments, vestments, and such like, “with the view of explaining or amending the said rubrics, orders, and directions, so as to secure general uniformity of practice _in such matters as are essential_.” {15} Now, observe, by their own shewing, by the evidence they adduce, by the one argument they advance, they recommend changes to secure a greater uniformity in things which are _not essential_! Their own very statement about these things, their sole ground on which they form their opinion and base their recommendation, is, that in regard to those witnesses whom they have examined, they (the ornaments or vestments) are by none _regarded as essential_. They accept and endorse this; and then, in spite of the terms of their commission to enquire how to secure a general uniformity of practice in _such __things as are essential_, the only recommendation which they make is upon that which they proclaim to be _unessential_, and what is more, upon the very ground of its being _unessential_! {16} But now, having considered the Commissioners’ one reason, and their “opinion,” and their consequent recommendation, we must come a little more particularly to examine their proposed mode of operation. It is true they here become vague and uncertain. They think “it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the Church all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage, &c.” and, “that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress.”—(Report, p. vii.) But as to the details of this provision, as to “the best _mode_ of giving effect to these conclusions,” they are not yet prepared with their scheme. Perhaps this is all very natural, and it may be very fortunate. We may be thankful that we have not a scheme devised, to carry out their proposal, as crude as the proposal and the Report itself. But though these details are not before us, and we have a little respite before they come, we are not without some indication as to what they are likely to be; and we shall do well to use the time we have before they actually take definite shape, in providing as far as possible to thwart any pernicious principles which may be embodied in them.