[176] As stated in ch. i. § 4, these decisions are part of our Church law, until reversed or altered by future judicial decisions or by legislation. As intimated in the Preface, no opinion is here expressed as to their correctness, or as to what the law ought to be on the points with which they deal. It has been questioned whether in the Ornaments Rubric and in the Act of Uniformity of 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 2), from which it is derived, the mention of such ornaments as were in the Church by authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. refers to the ornaments sanctioned by the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., the use of which was enjoined by the Act of Uniformity of 1549 (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 1), or to those previously in use. It may be observed that this Act is referred to as made in the second year of the reign in the later Act of Uniformity of 1552 (5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1, s. 4), and the Book itself is associated with that year in the 36th Article. In the Bp. of Winchester's Case (1596) 2 Co. Rep. 40 a, the Payment of Tithes Act of the same session (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 13) is referred to as made in the Parliament holden in the second year of Edward VI. See also Westerton _v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 156, 160; Martin _v._ Mackonockie (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 365, at p. 390; Elphinstone _v._ Purchas (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 66, 94. [177] Faulkner _v._ Litchfield (1845) 1 Rob. Eccl. 184; Westerton _v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 176-185. A variety of embroidered cloths is permissible; _Ib._188. But the decision in _Re_ St. Luke's, Chelsea (1904) P. 257, that marble is "stuff" within Canon 82, seems open to question. [178] Phill. Eccl. Law, 733-5; Liddell _v._ Beal (1860) 14 Moo. P. C. 1, 14; Durst _v._ Masters (1876) 1 P. D. 373; Ridsdale _v._ Clifton (1877) 2 P. D. 276; Bradford _v._ Fry (1878) 4 P. D. 93, 106; _Re_ St. Matthias, Richmond (1897) P. 70; _Re_ St. Ethelburga (1900) P. 80; _Re_ St. John Baptist, Paignton (1905) P. 111. [179] Liddell _v._ Beal, _ubi sup._; Elphinstone _v._ Purchas (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 66. [180] Boyd _v._ Phillpotts (1874) L. R. 4 A. & E. 297; (1875) 6 P. C. 435; Hughes _v._ Edwards (1877) 2 P. D. 361; _Re_ St. Mark, Marylebone (1898) P. 115; Davey _v._ Hinde (1901) P. 95; (1903) P. 221. [181] _Re_ St. Lawrence, Pittington (1880) 5 P. D. 131; _Re_ St. John, Pendlebury (1895) P. 178. [182] Westerton _v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report 187,8; overruling Faulkner _v._ Litchfield (1845) 1 Rob. Eccl. 184. [183] _Re_ Holy Trinity, Stroud Green (1887) 12 P. D. 199; _Re_ St. Mark, Marylebone (1898) P. 115. [184] _Re_ St. Agnes, Toxteth Park (1885) 11 P. D. 1; _Re_ St. John Baptist, Timberhill (1895) P. 71. [185] White _v._ Bowron (1873) L. R. 4 A. & E. 207; 43 L. J. Eccl. 7.