But a difficulty, still more insuperable, presented itself, in an occurrence which took place in the year 1791, but which is much too delicate to be mentioned.  The explanation of it, however, would convince the reader, that all the efforts of Mr. Pitt from that day were rendered useless, I mean as to bringing the question, as a minister of state, to a favourable issue.

But though Mr. Pitt did not carry this great question, he was yet one of the greatest supporters of it.  He fostered it in its infancy.  If, in his public situation, he had then set his face against it, where would have been our hope?  He upheld it also in its childhood; and though in this state of its existence it did not gain from his protection all the strength which it was expected it would have acquired, he yet kept it from falling, till his successors, in whose administration a greater number of favourable circumstances concurred to give it vigour, brought it to triumphant maturity.

Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, having been called to the head of the executive government on the death of Mr. Pitt, the cause was ushered into parliament under new auspices.  In a former year His Majesty had issued a proclamation, by which British merchants were forbidden (with certain defined exceptions) to import slaves into the colonies, which had been conquered by the British arms in the course of the war.  This circumstance afforded an opportunity of trying the question in the House of Commons with the greatest hope of success.  Accordingly Sir A. Pigott, the attorney-general, as an officer of the crown; brought in a bill on the thirty-first of March 1806, the first object of which was, to give effect to the proclamation now mentioned.  The second was, to prohibit British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into the colonies of any foreign power, whether hostile or neutral.  And the third was, to prohibit British subjects and British capital from being employed in carrying on a Slave-trade in foreign ships; and also to prevent the outfit of foreign ships from British ports.

Sir A. Pigott, on the introduction of this bill, made an appropriate speech.  The bill was supported by Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook, and Mr. Bagwell; but opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr. Rose, Sir Robert Peele, and Sir Charles Price.  On the third reading a division being called for, there appeared for it thirty-five, and against it only thirteen.

On the seventh of May it was introduced into the Lords.  The supporters of it there were, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, and the Lords Holland, Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough.  The opposers were, the Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of Westmoreland, and the Lords Eldon and Sheffield.  At length a division took place, when there appeared to be in favour of it forty-three, and against it eighteen.