Agitation may be successfully employed for a bad as well as good cause. What was the weapon of the English abolitionists?--Agitation. Regard the question of the abolition of the slave trade when first brought into Parliament--behold the influence of PITT and the tory party beating down its advocates by an overwhelming majority! Look at the question of abolition itself, twenty years after, and you see WILBERFORCE and his adherents carrying the question itself of _abolition of slavery_, by a majority as triumphant! How was all this accomplished?--By agitation in Parliament! It was on this ample theatre that the abolitionists worked their fatal spells. It was on this wide stage of discussion that they spoke to the people of England in that voice of fanaticism, which, at length, found an echo that suited their purposes. It was through the debates, which circulated by means of the press throughout every corner of the realm, that they carried that question to its extremest borders, to the hamlet of every peasant in the empire. Can it then be expected, if we give the American abolitionists the same advantage of that wide field of debate which Congress affords, that the _same results_ will not follow? The local legislatures are limited theatres of action. Their debates are comparatively obscure. These are not read by the people at large. Allow the agitators a great political centre, like that of Washington--_permit_ them to address their voice of fanatical violence to the whole American people, through their diffusive press, and they want no greater advantage. They have a MORAL LEVER BY WHICH THEY CAN MOVE A WORLD OF OPINION. The course of the southern States is therefore marked out by a pencil of light. They should obtain additional guarantees against _the discussion of slavery in Congress, in any manner, or in any of its forms, as it exists in the United States_. This is the only means that promises success in removing agitation. We have said that this is the accepted time. When we look at the spread of opinion on this subject in some of the eastern States--in Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut--what are we to expect in a few years, in the middle States, should discussion proceed in Congress? These States are yet uninfected, in any considerable degree, by the fanatical spirit. _They may not remain so after a lapse of five years._ If they are animated by a true spirit of patriotism--by a genuine love for the Union, they should, and could with effect, interpose to stay this _moral_ pestilence. Their voice in this matter would be influential. New York and Pennsylvania are intermediate between the South and East in position and in physical strength.’