SIR JOHN HILL WITH THE ROYAL SOCIETY, FIELDING, SMART, &c. A PARALLEL between Orator Henley and Sir John Hill-his love of the Science of Botany, with the fate of his “ Vegetable System"-ridicules scientific Collectors; his "Dissertation en Royal Societies,". and his "Review of the Works of the Royal Society"-Compliments himself that he is NOT a mem ber-Successful in his attacks on the Experimentalists, but loses his spirit in encountering the Wits--"The Inspector". '—a paper-war with Fielding—a literary stratagem—Battles with Smart and Woodward-Hill appeals to the Nation for the Office of Keeper of the Sloane Collection-closes his life by turning Empiric.-Some Epigrams on Hill-His Miscellaneous Writings. IN the history of Genius, we discover some few who have opened their career with noble designs, and with no deficient powers, yet unblest with stoic virtues, by a sudden transition of character, they have sought to acquire those rewards which they had missed in their honourable labours, and have left a name proverbial for its disgrace. Our own Literature exhibits two extraordinary characters, indelibly marked by the same tradi VOL. I. 20 tional odium. Yet the wit and acuteness of Orator Henley, and the science and vivacity of the versatile Sir John Hill, ought still to separate them from those who plead the same motives for abjuring all moral restraint, without having ever furnished the world with a single instance, that they were capable of forming nobler views. This Orator and this Knight would admit of a close parallel,* both as modest in their youth, as afterwards remarkable for their effrontery. Their youth witnessed the same devotedness to study, with the same inventive and enterprising genius. Hill projected and pursued a plan of botanical travels, to form a grand collection of rare plants: his patronage was even splendid, but too limited; and this man of Genius suffered the misfortune of having anticipated the national taste for this Science, half a century too early. Our young Philosopher's valuable "Treatise on Gems," from Theophrastus, procured for him the warm friendships of the eminent Members of the Royal Society. To this critical period of their lives their resemblance is striking; nor is it less from the moment the surprising revolution in their characters occurred. Pressed by the wants of life, they lost its decencies. Henley attempted to poise himself against the University, Hill against the Royal Society: * The Moral and Literary character of Henley has been developed in "Calamities of Authors," vok. i. rejected by these learned bodies, both these Cains of Literature, amidst their luxury of ridicule on eminent men, were still evincing some claims to rank among them. The one prostituted his genius in "Lectures," the other in "Inspectors." Never two Authors were more constantly pelted with Epigrams, or buffeted in Literary Quarrels: they have met with the same fate; covered with the same odium. Yet Sir John Hill, this despised man, after all the fertile absurdities of his literary life, performed more for the improvement of the Philosophical Transactions," and was the cause of diffusing a more general taste for the Science of Botany, than any other contemporary. His real ability extorts that regard, which the perpetual vanity of misdirected ingenuity, and often worthless motives, have lost for him in the world.' At the time Hill was engaged in several large compilations for the Booksellers, his employers The twenty-six folios of his "Vegetable System," with many others, testify his love and his labour. It contains 1,600 plates, representing 26,000 different figures of Plants from Nature only. This publication ruined the Author, whose widow (the sister of Lord Ranelagh) published "An Address to the Public, by the Hon. Lady Hill, setting forth the consequences of the late Sir John Hill's acquaintance with the Earl of Bute, 1787."—I should have noticed it in the "Calamities of Authors."-It offers a sad and mortifying lesson to the Votary of Science, who aspires to a noble enterprise. Lady Hill complains of the Patron; but a Patron, however great, cannot always raise the public taste to the degree required to afford the only true patronage |