undergraduates used to go to hear him, ask to see him, discuss religious
problems with him. Moreover, before he left the Anglican communion, Hugh
had conducted a mission at Cambridge, with the result that several of
his hearers became Roman Catholics. A certain amount of orthodox alarm
was felt and expressed at the new and attractive religious element which
his sermons provided, and eventually representations were made to one
that I should use my influence with Hugh that he should leave Cambridge.
This I totally declined to do, and suggested that the right way to meet
it was to get an Anglican preacher to Cambridge of persuasive eloquence
and force. I did eventually speak to Hugh about it, and he was
indignant. He said: "I have not attempted, and shall not attempt, any
sort of proselytisation of undergraduates--I do not think it fair, or
even prudent. I have never started the subject of religion on any
occasion with any undergraduate. But I must preach what I believe; and,
of course, if undergraduates consult me, I shall tell them what I think
and why I think it." This rule he strictly adhered to; and I do not know
of any converts that he made.

Moreover, it was at this time that strangers, attracted by his sermons
and his books, began to consult him by letter, and seek interviews with
him. In this relation he showed himself, I have reason to know,
extraordinarily kind, sympathetic, and straightforward. He wrote fully
and as often as he was consulted; he saw an ever-increasing number of
inquirers. He used to groan over the amount of time he had to spend in
letters and interviews, and he used to say that it often happened that
the people least worth helping took up the most time. He always gave his
very best; but the people who most vexed him were those engaged in
religious inquiry, not out of any profound need, but simply for the
emotional luxury; and who argued round and round in a circle for the
pleasure of being sympathised with. Hugh was very clear and practical in