558 
The learning and abilities which he 
displayed in this important contest, 
the able aud dextrous manner in 
which he exposed the fallacy of Dr, 
P’s tenets, and turned even his own 
polemic weapons against ‘himself ; 
the unanswerable arguments which, 
with uncommon care and diligence, 
he selected in defence of the most 
~ essential truths of christianity ; 
and, finally, 
decisive victory which he gained 
* ever that champion of Materialism 
and Philosophical Necessity, gain- 
ed him the respect and admiration 
of every friend to christianity. The 
controversy was opened by a charge 
delivered to the clergy of the dis. 
trict of St. Alban’s, of which he was 
archdeacon (for which see Gent. Mag. 
LUI. p. 856); and was fol- 
lowed upby Dr. H. in two pamph- 
lets, in rejoinder tg the objections 
of Dr. P. ; and nine letters to Dr. P. 
4790. ** Remarks upon Dr. Priest- 
ley’s second Letter to the Archdea- 
con of St. Alban’s, 1787,” Svo; 
which produced ‘* The Calyanism 
of the Protestant Dissenters asserted, 
ina letter to the Archdeacon, by 
Samuel Palmer, pastor of the inde- 
pendent congregation at Hackney, 
1787.” 8vo. He was afterwards 
presented by his pupil Lord Ayles- 
ford, to the rectory of Albury in 
Surrey : andwas promoted by lord 
chancellor Thurlow to a prebendal 
stall in the church of Gloucester ; 
and afterwards, on the death of Dr. 
Smallwell, (788, was made bishop 
_ of St. David’s by the interest of the 
same noble lord, who was much 
pleased “with his letters to Dr. 
Priestley, and said, that ‘* those wha 
defended the church, ought to be 
supported by the church,” In his 
episcopal character he has in a great 
a 
the complete and, 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
measure answered the high expec. 
tations of eminent usefulness which 
his elevation to’ the mitre so 
generally exeited. His first act in 
the Diocese of St. David's was to’ in. 
crease the salaries of the poor cu- 
rates, many of whom had not more 
than 81. or40l. per ann. He per. 
mitted none to officiate for less than 
151. per ann. His first charge to 
the clergy of that diocese, delivered 
1790, was greatly and deservedly 
admired. ‘This is what we suppose 
L. L. in the Gent. Mag. LX. p. 204, 
calls ¢* a pastoral letter to the clerical 
burgesses of Cuermarthen,” on the 
approach ofa general election, to 
make them ‘* vote against their sit. 
ting member, because he had been 
thanked for wishing to extend the 
toleration to dissenters.” It, how- 
ever, occasioned his subsequent pro 
motion to the see of Rochester, 
1793, and deanry of Westminster ; 
which proved considerably benefi- 
cial to the country at large, in times 
when its religion, its government, . 
and even its morality, were so maq 
nifestly in need of support. His 
lordship has been exposed to a con- 
siderable share of vulgar and illibe. 
ral abuse on account of his oppo- 
sition to the turbulence of demo- 
cratic rage. Some incautious and 
perhaps intemperate speeches, 
which he made in the house of 
lords during the discussion of lord 
Grenville’s bill, &c. were most se. 
verely reprimanded, and occasioned, 
for a time, a popular clamour 
against him. Yet the steady uni- 
formity, consistency and decision of 
his conduct, were of considerable 
utility-to government, and procured 
him the good-will of every friend to 
order, decency, virtue, and religion. 
Of his publications, the most con- 
‘ spicuous. 
