The way, in which Mr. Pitt became acquainted with this question, has already been explained.  A few doubts having been removed, when it was first started, he professed himself a friend to the abolition.  The first proof, which he gave of his friendship to it is known but to few; but it is, nevertheless, true, that so early as in 1788, he occasioned a communication to be made to the French government, in which he recommended an union of the two countries for the promotion of the great measure.  This proposition seemed to be then new and strange to the court of France; and the answer was not favourable.

From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own power.

As far, however, as he had scope, he exerted them.  If we look at him in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all, that he took an active, strenuous, and consistent part, and this year after year, by which he realized his professions.  In my own private communications with him, which were frequent, he never failed to give proofs of a similar disposition.  I had always free access to him.  I had no previous note or letter to write for admission.  Whatever papers I wanted, he ordered.  He exhibited also in his conversation with me on these occasions marks of a more than ordinary interest in the welfare of the cause.  Among the subjects, which were then started, there was one, which was always near his heart.  This was the civilization of Africa.  He looked upon this great work as a debt due to that continent for the many injuries we had inflicted upon it:  and had the abolition succeeded sooner, as in the infancy of his exertions he had hoped, I know he had a plan, suited no doubt to the capaciousness of his own mind, for such establishments in Africa, as he conceived would promote in due time this important end.

I believe it will be said, notwithstanding what I have advanced, that if Mr. Pitt had exerted himself as the minister of the country in behalf of the abolition, he could have carried it.  This brings the matter to an issue; for unquestionably the charge of insincerity, as it related to this great question, arose from the mistaken notion, that, as his measures in parliament were supported by great majorities, he could do as he pleased there.  But, they who hold this opinion, must be informed, that there were great difficulties, against which he had to struggle on this subject.  The Lord Chancellor Thurlow ran counter to his wishes almost at the very outset.  Lord Liverpool and Mr. Dundas did the same.  Thus, to go no further, three of the most powerful members of the cabinet were in direct opposition to him.  The abolition then, amidst this difference of opinion, could never become a cabinet measure; but if so, then all his parliamentary efforts in this case wanted their usual authority, and he could only exert his influence as a private man[A].

[Footnote A:  This he did with great effect on one or two occasions.  On the motion of Mr. Cawthorne in 1791, the cause hung as it were by a thread; and would have failed that day, to my knowledge, but for his seasonable exertions.]