The following important document we take from the National Intelligencer, of January 22, 1851. It was signed and published by gentlemen irrespective of parties—forty-four Senators and Representatives in Congress. It will be a curiosity to those of our readers who may have forgotten its well-timed and patriotic pledges. How unfortunate it has been for the country, and especially the public tranquillity, that the determination and counsels of these men were, in an evil hour, departed from, and flagrantly violated by the demagogues of the self-styled Democratic party! To the violation of this solemn pledge by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line, and the reÖpening of the Slavery agitation by the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, intended to elevate that miserable little demagogue, Stephen A. Douglass, to the Presidency, we are indebted for all the scenes of bloodshed in Kansas, to the angry slavery discussions in Congress, and the disgraceful scenes of riot being almost daily enacted there!

Several copies of the following Declaration were circulated in Congress, and obtained a number of signatures in both halls; but no other list was ever published, that we know of, besides this, which, it will be seen, was headed by the illustrious Henry Clay:

The rowdyism and treachery of Democracy never intended to abide by this pledge—and hence their "disturbance of the settlement aforesaid," by opening up anew this villainous "agitation upon the subject of slavery." This violation of a solemn pledge has introduced into Kansas civil war, caused bloodshed, the shooting down of men in cold blood, and overrun that country with contending parties, called "Friends of Freedom" and "Border Ruffians," armed with Sharpe's rifles, Colt's revolvers, bowie-knives, and clubs, mixed with Bibles!

All this really affords an illustration of the domineering insolence of Democratic Abolitionism—an element in our Federal Government which will stop at no extremity of violence, in order to subdue the people of the Slave States, and force them into a miserable subservience to its fanatical dominion. And it is worthy of note, that the shooting of Sheriff Jones and others in Kansas, occurred immediately after the arrival of the New Haven Emigrant Rifle Company! This, too, calls to mind forcibly the very delectable conversational speechifying that took place at the New Haven Rifle Meeting, among the pious villains who figured most conspicuously. As it is short, we give it entire:

After this, this clerical vagabond, Beecher, blessed the weapons, and encouraged the party to go forth and "do or die" in the sublime "cause of nigger freedom!" In all human probability, sweet Mary Dutton's rifle may have sped the ball that pierced the side of Sheriff Jones, the officer of the law, while in the honest discharge of a sworn duty! Subsequent murders, where pro-slavery men were shot down with these rifles, we attribute to the omen that Beecher found in his name "Killem"—it is a significant name in connection with Sharpe's rifle. The real assassins shoot down their men, and with their rifles and Bibles flee; but she who unfrocked herself by furnishing a rifle, and he who gave and blessed the weapon of death, are here to accept the thanks of their admirers and partisans. Let sweet Mary and her beloved pastor be crowned with wreaths of deadly night-shade, and consigned to one cell in Sing Sing prison!

But the success of Ruffianism in Kansas, in the hands of those vile Abolition Democrats, has emboldened members of the same party to introduce it in the Federal Capital. But the other day, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, made, in his place in the U. S. Senate, one of the most incendiary and inflammatory speeches ever uttered on the floor of either House of Congress! The vocabulary of Billingsgate was exhausted in denouncing all who dared to justify the institution of slavery—using, over and over again, such terms as "hireling, picked from the drunken spew of an uneasy civilization in the form of men," &c. The language made use of was disgraceful to the vile Abolitionist himself, and to the Senate, of which he never ought to have been a member. There was no limit to the personal abuse in which the villainous Senator indulged, no restraint to the vile epithets coined in his insane head; and the very natural consequence was, a personal chastisement of Mr. Sumner, in the Senate chamber, by Mr. Brooks, a Representative from South Carolina, and a relative of Judge Butler, the gentleman abused in his absence, which, for its severity, never was equalled in Washington. Mr. Sumner was the aggressor, because he poured out the vials of his wrath upon not only Judge Butler, a distinguished Senator, but upon the whole State of South Carolina.

We do not justify the selection of a time and place by Mr. Brooks, for punishing this Massachusetts Abolitionist; but we should despise the son of South Carolina who could hear his native State arraigned in such temper and language, without feeling intensely, and manifesting that feeling at a proper time and place. Indeed, it would be strange if a South Carolinian did not resent the arrogant, insulting, and contemptuous tone which Mr. Sumner saw fit to indulge in towards South Carolina in general, and her Senator in particular! We know Judge Butler—we have seen him on the Bench, in the discharge of the duties of a Circuit-Judge—we have seen and heard him in the Senate Chamber, where he has served for years, with credit to himself and honor to his State. He is an accomplished man, and a most amiable and honorable gentleman. His character is unblemished; he stands deservedly high; he is a gentleman of urbane and courteous demeanor, and is beloved, esteemed, and respected, by all gentlemen who know him or associate with him. Besides, he is an old man, gray-haired, and palsied; and, whether present or absent, deserved to be treated as a gentleman.

Northern men may not expect to vilify the South in this way, without having to atone for it. Men who profess to belong to the peace party, ought not to employ language that will provoke a fight, and then shield themselves behind their non-resistant defences. They voluntarily put themselves upon the platform of resistance—they pass insults, and they must submit to the consequences. We have just finished the perusal of a case in Æsop's Fables, exactly in point. It is the case of a trumpeter taken prisoner in battle. He claimed exemption from the common fate of prisoners of war, in ancient times, on the ground that he carried no weapons, and was, in fact, a non-combatant, belonging to the peace party! "Non-combatant, the Devil!" exclaimed the opposing party, pointing to his trumpet, as preparations were being made to put him to death, "Why, Sir, you hold in your hands the very instrument which incites our foes to tenfold furies against us!"

But this fight between the parties has to come, and it should begin at Washington, and if not in the halls of Congress, at least in the streets of the Federal city. Let the battle be fought there, and not in Kansas, and let it fall upon the villainous agitators of the Slavery question, and the Democratic disturbers of the Compromises of the Constitution. Let it come now, that it may be fought out and settled, and not left to posterity, to curse and crush the rising generation!

Mr. Brooks is a Democrat, and an anti-Know Nothing. Mr. Sumner is a Democrat—was elected by the votes of the Democrats, over that noble and dignified Whig, Mr. Winthrop, and his election was hailed throughout the Union as a Democratic triumph!

Massachusetts, irrespective of parties, seems to have taken great offence at this occurrence, and to have held indignation meetings, and was to have had Legislative action upon the subject. We tell Massachusetts that she is alone to blame, for sending such a man to the United States Senate. There was a great debate in the Senate twenty-five years ago, in which Daniel Webster and Gov. Hayne met each other and grappled like giants, as they were. The State of South Carolina, in that day, though represented by an able, patriotic, and great man, came off second best. The Senator from Massachusetts, of that day, was an able statesman, a Constitutional lawyer of unsurpassed abilities, and, withal, a cautious gentleman, and rose above the low blackguardism of a Sumner and a Wilson. When taunted by the Senator from South Carolina with Federalism, and opposition to some of the features of the War of 1812, the great Webster presented Massachusetts before the Senate and the Union, in such a manner that men of all sections bowed down and worshipped her. Standing erect with the flash of his eagle eye, he exclaimed, "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill"—let them testify to the loyalty of Massachusetts to this glorious Union! Not only did Mr. Webster come out of that controversy with South Carolina with the admiration of every man in the country, but with the respect and admiration of Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and all the high-toned statesmen of the South. And why? Because he was not a Sumner, a Wilson, or an Abolition Blackguard. Times have changed—a different man takes the place of a Webster, with only the memory of an insulting speech and a broken head! Let Massachusetts send men to the United States Senate who can and will demean themselves like gentlemen, and gentlemen from the South will appreciate them, while they differ honestly with them on great questions.

What wonderful progress Democracy is making in the country! First, Democracy quarrelled and jowered over the election of a Speaker two months, and finally, by the introduction of the Plurality Rule, caused Banks, a Black Republican, to be elected. And as if determined to atone for this wear of time and money, they have brought about a series of fights, which, before they are disposed of, will cost the government half a million of dollars!

First then, William Smith, an ex-Governor of the State of Virginia, and member of the House of Representatives, assailed and beat the editor of the Evening Star, in December last, in the street.

Second, Albert Rusk, a member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas, assailed and beat the editor of the New York Tribune in the grounds of the capitol, immediately after leaving the House of Representatives.

Third, Philip T. Herbert, of Alabama, a member of Congress from California, shot down and killed an Irish Catholic waiter at Willard's, and is now under bonds to appear before the Court and await his trial for such crime as they may adjudge him to have committed.

Fourth, Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, assails and beats unmercifully a Senator from Massachusetts, when occupying his seat in the Senate of the United States.

Fifth, Mr. Bright knocked down the doorkeeper, for an inconsiderable offence. Here, then, we have five breaches of the peace in five months, by Democrats upon Democrats, although the "Boston Pilot," a Catholic organ, falsely charges that some of the parties making these assaults are "Know Nothings." We congratulate the Democratic party upon the progress of its leading members! They are sinking by swift descent into barbarism, and bringing the country to ruin. And in keeping with all this, they have tried to nominate for the Vice-Presidency a man who openly proposed in Congress the repeal of our neutrality laws, so as to bring a general fight!

It will not do to say that Sumner is not of the Democratic party, because he is a regular-built Free-Soiler and Black Republican: the Washington Union settled this point in 1852, when it uttered these memorable words:

The rules of the Senate forbid personalities in debate, and it was the sworn duty of its Locofoco President, Mr. Bright, to have called Mr. Sumner to order for his abuse of Judge Butler. But as far back as thirty years ago, under the auspices of John C. Calhoun as presiding officer, a decision was made to the effect that the presiding officer of the Senate was neither bound nor had he the power to call Senators to order! That power, according to his decision, belonged wholly to the Senate itself——thus delivering over the minority of that body to "the tender mercies" of the majority! The object of Mr. Calhoun at the time was to play into the hands of a combination which had been formed to break down the Administration of John Quincy Adams, and to cripple Henry Clay. The instrument used was the sarcastic, irritating, and personal rhetoric of John Randolph, then a member of the Senate. To this end, Randolph was suffered to deliver in the Senate a long succession of tirades, disgraceful to the Senate, abusive of New England and of Henry Clay. Here is a specimen of Randolph's abuse, which led to a duel between him and Mr. Clay:

This was pleasing to Mr. Calhoun and the dominant party in the Senate, and his decision which tolerated it never was questioned by any authoritative precedent, until Millard Fillmore was elected Vice-President. With characteristic independence, he determined that a precedent so unreasonable and absurd should not be binding on him as the presiding officer of the Senate. He therefore, on assuming the duties of his office, delivered an address to the Senate, in which he informed that body that he considered it his sworn duty to preserve decorum, and would reverse the rule which had so long prevailed, that Senators were not to be called to order for words spoken in debate! The Senate ordered this address to be entered at large on their journals, as an evidence of their endorsement of its doctrines; and there it is now, recorded evidence of the patriotism, high sense of decorum, and senatorial dignity of that great and good man, Millard Fillmore.