Described by his biographer as ‘a model of a Christian gentleman and an upright senator’,
His lively genius finds in holy writ
A richer mine of unsuspected wit.
Wilberforce, whose steady admirer he was, said in 1813 that, after himself, Hill was the first ‘member of the House that was publicly considered to be a religious man’, and added that he ‘was certainly possessed of strong feelings of religion, but had singularities which weakened his character’. These singularities were supported by Hill’s view that ‘religion was falsely accused of generating moroseness and gloom’, which often led him to be facetious in a determined effort to put everyone in a good humour, with varying success: Lord Kenyon did not know ‘within the circle of human nature a better man than Sir Richard Hill’ and his hospitality at Hawkstone was proverbial. In 1790 the clerical critics of his support for civil liberty for dissenters were disarmed when he entertained his kinsman Archbishop Moore there;
Hill had from the outset been an effusive admirer of Pitt, though his family pride had been wounded by Pitt’s bestowal of a peerage on his cousin Noel Hill, of the cadet branch of Attingham. He was particularly hostile to Fox (whom he had in 1783 lampooned as ‘Great Carlo Khan’) during the Regency crisis.
Your persevering silence speaks more forcibly than a thousand answers and you may rest assured I shall not trespass upon you by a personal intrusion for a single moment, though had I been permitted to have had the honour of a short interview I have no doubt I should have explained myself in such a way, as would perfectly have justified me and satisfied you as to any expressions I may have made use of in my letters. But I suppose it is best as it is; therefore only say, may a gracious Providence ever bless and protect you, my still dear Sir! These are indeed awful times and I am persuaded far more awful are at hand, unless an immediate end be put to the war.
PRO 30/8/145, f. 34.
On 30 Dec. 1794 Hill was one of four county Members who supported Wilberforce’s amendment for peace: overcome by tears, he admitted that he had supported the war at the outset, but had been tempted to support Fox’s peace motion last session. Now he thought the war would ruin the country and advocated withdrawal and reliance on England’s ‘wooden walls’ for self-defence. He publicly denied that he regretted his action, explaining with reference to Pitt, ‘I have almost uniformly voted with him on every great national question for more than ten years past, and I hope to do so again: but I never resigned to him my right of private judgment’.
Hill spoke in favour of the cavalry bill, since it was defensive, 2 Nov. 1796. He supported Grey’s motion for parliamentary reform, 26 May 1797, on which occasion he explained that ‘he had now rather hear the speeches of others than make any of his own’. He went on to advocate a coalition of talents in government, rather than that the country should be ‘between the millstones, ground to powder’ and characteristically suggested that every man should reform himself, as a prerequisite. He had been a member of the ‘armed neutrality’ advocating a new administration in March 1797. He nevertheless made a voluntary contribution of £1,200 in 1797. Privately he deplored the duel between Pitt and Tierney in May 1798, as Pitt was guided by ‘false profligate notions of honour’ in engaging in it: ‘it was a shocking aggravation of the crime that it was committed on the Lord’s day and even on Whitsunday. What a method of commemorating the descent of the Holy Ghost!’ On 3 Feb. 1800 he again voted for peace negotiations. At this time he was involved in pamphlet warfare with Charles Daubeny, who had attacked Wilberforce in his Guide to the Church (1798). Hill replied with An apology for brotherly love and for the doctrines of the Church of England, and when Daubeny combated this, with Reformation truth restored and Daubenism confuted and Martin Luther vindicated. Though a Calvinist in theology, who in his early days had consorted with Methodists, he remained an Anglican, albeit a keen evangelical and a critic of the hierarchy. In 1803 he defended the evangelical clergy against Bishop Tomline, Pitt’s friend; the orthodox clergy resented his attitudes and his repeated attempts to secure through Pitt the deanery of York or Chester for his brother Robert were not successful.
Addington was from the start a minister after Hill’s heart and he was his constant supporter and correspondent, though he refused to countenance a suggestion from the Attingham branch of the family that he should take advantage of the situation to solicit a peerage, with remainder to his brother John and his issue, thinking it would make him a laughing stock at his time of life, when he should be ‘expressing his anxiety for no honours but those which are beyond the grave’.
Hill wrote again, 26 Oct. 1802, advising Addington to cling to peace despite Napoleon’s provocations and shun costly continental alliances. On 21 Apr. 1803 he wrote advising Addington to strengthen his administration by an alliance with Fox, their political views being now ‘nearly the same’. Admitting that this letter was not without ‘some foundation’, he did not ask for ‘a single word of answer. You best know how to act, and if you will just shake your head at me when I pass you in the House, it will convey as full a reply as if you were to write a volume’.
In August 1803 Hill informed Addington that he had remonstrated with the editor of a ‘loyal paper in high repute’ for the ‘pernicious tendency’ of some of its contents and assured him that ‘no minister ever stood so unanimously high and respected’ in Shropshire during the many years Hill had represented it than he. On 3 Dec. he wrote apologizing for absence through illness and likened Addington’s critic Windham to the blasphemous Rabshakeh, and Buonaparte to Senacherib.
He died 28 Nov. 1808. Wraxall described him as
one of the most upright, disinterested and honest men who ever sat in Parliament ... His manners were quaint and puritanical; his address shy and embarrassed ... but in the simplicity, singularity and eccentricity of his character, as well as deportment, he always reminded me of Addison’s Sir Roger de Coverley.
Wraxall Mems. i. 106.
With an annual income of over £15,000, of which he spent over £10,000, Hill derived nearly £4,000 p.a. from money out at interest. In his will he left legacies worth £30,000 and annuities worth £2,240.