THE ROYAL SOCIETY 89 



adding F.R.S. after his name. He, in consequence, and, it is 

 stated, contrary to the advice of Folkes, endeavoured to obtain 

 the necessary quahfication for candidature ; but he was disHked 

 to such an extent that he could not obtain the requisite number 

 of signatures, three, for his certificate, notwithstanding the fact 

 that the number of Fellows was about three hundred. This 

 perhaps was hardly surprising since he had criticized his con- 

 temporary scientists very adversely, designating them by such 

 terms as " butterfly hunters," " cockle shell merchants " and 

 " medal scrapers." This reverse must have been a severe blow 

 to his vanity, for there can be no doubt that his claims to the 

 Fellowship, on scientific grounds, were as strong as any and 

 stronger than those of most of the Fellows. And this Hill, who 

 was by no means lacking in self-confidence, knew. His criticism 

 of the Society culminated in his Review of the Works of the 

 Royal Society of London ( 1 75 1)^ which was in appearance like 

 that of the Transactions, and consisted of reviews of several 

 papers with comments by Hill. The work was dedicated to 

 Martin Folkes, the President, on whom he placed the responsi- 

 bility for publication, for, wrote he in his dedication, " The 

 Purport of the more considerable of them has been long since 

 delivered to you in conversation ; and if you had thought the 

 Society deserved to escape the Censure that must attend this 

 Method of laying them before the World, you might have 

 prevented it, by making the necessary Use of them in private. 



" Nor is this. Sir, the only Sense in which you have been the 

 great Instrument of their Production ; since it cannot but be ac- 

 knowledged, that if any body, except your great Self, had been 

 in the high Office you so worthily fill at present, the Occasions 

 of many of the more remarkable of them could not have been 

 received by the Body, under whose Countenance alone they claim 

 their Places in this Work." 



He then charges Folkes with unworthy conduct towards him, 

 and, in brief, he considered that Folkes and Baker were his 

 enemies. The reason for this, according to Hill, was as follows. 



^ See also Lucine sine concubitu. A Letter addressed to the Royal Society, 

 London, 1750. A Disse7-tation on Royal Societies, London, 1750. 



