Some attention has been attracted to a letter from Gen. HOUSTON to Hon. John Letcher of Virginia, rebuking very severely the attempt made by South Carolina to induce Virginia to take the lead in a scheme of secession. Gen. Houston speaks of the Constitution as the most perfect of human instruments, and refuses to countenance any attempt to alter or amend its provisions. He says that every intelligent and disinterested observer must concede that agitation at the North is dying out, that the laws are obeyed, and that no necessity exists for resisting or dissolving the Union. The letter exerts a marked influence on the political movements of the day. The House of Representatives in Delaware on the 5th of February adopted a series of resolutions very warmly approving the Compromise measures of the last session of Congress, and especially the law for the more effectual enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution requiring the surrender of fugitive slaves. Hon. D.S. KAUFMAN, member of Congress from Texas, died very suddenly on the 31st of January. His decease was ascribed to an affliction of the heart, but it is supposed by those who knew him most intimately to have resulted from a wound received by a pistol shot some years since in a rencontre in the Texas Legislature. The ball had never been extracted. He was a gentleman of ability and of a very amiable disposition. A large "Union meeting" was held at Westchester, N.Y., on the 30th of January. A letter was received from Daniel Webster, regretting his inability to attend the meeting, and warmly approving its objects. Mr. Clay also wrote a letter which was read at the meeting, in which he said that "two classes of disunionists threaten our country: one is that which is open and undisguised in favor of separation--the other is that which, disowning a desire of dissolution of the Union, adopts a course and contends for measures and principles which must inevitably lead to that calamitous result." He considered the latter the "more dangerous, because it is deceptive and insidious." A correspondence between Mr. MATHEW, a British consul, and the Governor of South Carolina, has excited some attention. Mr. Mathew represents the very great inconvenience occasioned by the law of South Carolina requiring the imprisonment of every colored person arriving in her ports until the departure of the vessel, and the payment of expenses by her captain. The correspondence is friendly, and the subject has been referred to a committee in the South Carolina Legislature. The fact of a correspondence between the representative of a foreign power and one of the States of the Union, in its separate capacity, excites remark and censure.