did not think it worth accepting. The following year, on the death of Dr Baillie, professor of theology in the college of Glasgow, principal Robertson desired him to stand candidate for that chair; but he seems to have taken no steps for that purpose, probably from the circumstance of his being only a preacher, which might have operated against him in case of a well supported candidate coming for ward. The same year, probably to be ready in case of a similar emergency, he again applied to the presbytery of Haddington, and was by them ordained to the holy ministry. In the year 1779, through the interest of principal Robertson, and his uncle Dr M'Cormick, he was offered one of the churches of Edinburgh, with the prospect of a chair in the university in a short time. This also he declined with a view to some contemplated arrangements of lord Kinnoul. In consequence of the death of principal Morison, Dr Gillespie was shortly after removed from the first charge in the city to the principalty of the new college. Dr Adamson, the second minister, was promoted to Dr Gillespie's benefice, and Mr Hill was elected by the town-council successor to Dr Adamson. In consequence of his holding the professorship of Greek, Mr Hill's induction was protested against by a member of the presbytery of St Andrews, and the case was brought before the General Assembly in the year 1780, which dismissed it without ceremony, as it did also overtures on the subject from the synods of Fife, Perth, and Stirling. Mr Hill was, accordingly, with the full concurrence of the congregation, admitted to the church in which his father had officiated, on the 22nd day of June, 1780. Since his settlement at St Andrews as a professor of Greek, he had sat in the General Assembly as an elder; he now appeared in the more weighty character of a minister, and on the retirement of Dr Robertson became the most important member of the house, and confessedly the leader of the moderates.
We have already noticed his acceptance of a life-rent superiority, by which he became a freeholder in the county of Nairn in the year 1774. He continued to stand on the roll of freeholders for that county till the winter of 1784, when a new election came on ; but Mr Campbell, from being on the side of the ministry, was now violent on the side of the opposition. In this case, for Mr Hill to have given his vote to Mr Campbell's candidate would have been considered by the ministry as open rebellion against their claims on the church, for which they might have selected another leader, and have, at the same time, withdrawn every mark of their favour from him. They might also have prosecuted him before the justiciary on a charge of perjury, as they had already done some others in similar circumstances. Under this complication of difficulties, Mr Hill as usual had recourse to the earl of Kinnoul, and to his brother-in-law Mr Murray of North Berwick. Lord Kinnoul most ingeniously gave him back his own views; did not, as chancellor of the university think he was warranted to allow him to desert his professional duties for the purpose merely of giving a political vote; and stated, that though he himself could have greatly extended his interest by such votes as Mr Hill possessed, he had never granted one of them. A charge of perjury he admitted, might be brought against any person who received them, and whether it might be well founded or not, it was a charge to which, in his opinion, no minister of the gospel should expose himself. The judgment of his lordship we cannot but approve, though it is probable that if the candidate had been a ministerial one, the Greek class might have been allowed a few holidays without the smallest impropriety. Mr Murray, while he regretted (though he no doubt knew it from the first,) that his friend should ever have accepted such a vote, applauded his purpose of relinquishing it, and of refusing, under all circumstances, to comply with the requisition to attend the election. Mr Hill's biographer labours hard to clear him from any degree of blame in this affair,
