of the liberal arts, how could it be quarrelled at in an University if they sang with understanding both of the matter and manner thereof.  Yet some took great distaste thereat as attendancie to superstition."[13:1]

The chapel at Peterhouse, we read elsewhere, which was built in 1632, and consecrated by Bishop White of Ely, had a beautiful ceiling and a noble east window.  “A grave divine,” Fuller tells us, “preaching before the University at St. Mary’s, had this smart passage in his Sermon—­that as at the Olympian Games he was counted the Conqueror who could drive his chariot wheels nearest the mark yet so as not to hinder his running or to stick thereon, so he who in his Sermons could preach near Popery and yet no Popery, there was your man.  And indeed it now began to be the general complaint of most moderate men that many in the University, both in the schools and pulpits, approached the opinions of the Church of Rome nearer than ever before.”

Archbishop Laud, unlike the bishops of Dr. Newman’s day, favoured the Catholic revival, and when Mr. Bernard, the lecturer of St. Sepulchre’s, London, preached a “No Popery” sermon at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, he was dragged into the High Commission Court, and, as the hateful practice then was, a practice dear to the soul of Laud, was bidden to subscribe a formal recantation.  This Mr. Bernard refused to do, though professing his sincere sorrow and penitence for any oversights and hasty expressions in his sermon.  Thereupon he was sent back to prison, where he died.  “If,” adds Fuller, “he was miserably abused in prison by the keepers (as some have reported) to the shortening of his life, He that maketh inquisition for blood either hath or will be a revenger thereof."[14:1]

By the side of this grim story the much-written-about incidents of the Oxford Movement seem trivial enough.

Not a few Cambridge scholars of this period, Richard Crashaw among the number, found permanent refuge in Rome.

The story of Marvell’s conversion is emphatic but vague in its details.  The “Jesuits,” who were well represented in Cambridge at the time, are said to have persuaded him to leave Cambridge secretly, and to take refuge in one of their houses in London.  Thither the elder Marvell followed in pursuit, and after search came across his son in a bookseller’s shop, where he succeeded both in convincing the boy of his errors and in persuading him to return to Trinity.  An odd story, and not, as it stands, very credible; but Mr. Grosart discovered among the Marvell papers at Hull a fragment of a letter without signature, address, or date, which throws some sort of light on the incident.  This letter was evidently, as Mr. Grosart surmises, sent to the elder Marvell by some similarly afflicted parent.  In its fragmentary state the letter reads as follows:—­