(barcttV r /^Tratcbv»tatct>, [So. XVII.] THE TABLE T. No. XVII. u The habit of acquiring propertybegets a caution in parting with it." MEN who poflefs a censorious temper are apt to complain, that people lose their incJina - ititn to do good, in proportion as their ability creases. This is hardly true in the extent which £ commonly supposed, and even where the fatft fxifts it often deserves an apology. When a man rofp'ers in bufmefs, his friends are too much in clined to imagine, that they have a claim to par ticipate in his good fortune ; and it often happens, that applications for assistance, to this prosperous man, multiply falter than his property enlarges. Every one, who meets with a refulal, charges liim ■with unkindnefs, and really believes, that wealth has hardened his heart, and abated his regard for bis friends. It may be granted for once, that the fa<£ fully authorises the charge, and that men grow avari cious as they grow rich. Some real'ons, however, ihoutf be offered to explain and apologize for this change of disposition. In the firft place, it may be mentioned, that as men extend their business they find by experience, that they sustain more inconvenience than they expetfted, in aflifting their acquaintance. Ihe frequent disappointments and lofl'es they meet ■yrith, by advances to their friends, destroy their confidence in mankind; and they fufpecft all, who have not given unequivocal proofs of their punc tuality and knowledge of business. This loss of confidence is a powerful cause in restraining rich men from lending assistance to their less prosper ous friends and neighbours. When they former ly feemedinore difpofedto patronise others, they did not anticipate the confequepces,that would re sult from indulginga temper of undiftinguifhing liberality. Another reason for this change of disposition, which is complained of, may be drawn from the influence tliat prosperity unavoidably produc.es over the mind. The sympathetic impulses do not operate vigorously, where there is 110 fiinilarity of circumttances. A man, entering into business with a small capital, has occasion to ask assistance ; and when it is asked of him, he denies with foine reiu&ance, because he has a fellow-feeling with him who solicits it. But when he becomes independent, he forgets the pleasure and advan tage that are derived from benevolent aid, and therefore his sensibility does not, as formerly, prompt him to grant the favors that are requested. A third reason results from the nature of the human constitution. Avarice and precaution are among the attendants of old age. If therefore we perceive a man, who was benevolent and friendly when he was young, afluming a different character when he becomes old, we inuft, in ad dition to the other causes that have been enumer ated, fuppole that he is acting agreeably to a law «f his nature. Mr. Fen no, EVEIIY friend to the rights of conscience, equal libeny and diffufive happiness, mult have felt patn on feeing the attempt made by one of your conefpondents, in the Gazette of the United States No. 8, May the 9th, to revive an odious system of religious intolerance The author may not have been fully sensible of the tendency of his publication, because he speaks of preferring imiverfal toleration. Perhaps he is one of those who think it confident with justice to exclude certain citizens from the honors and emoluments society, merely on accbunt of their religious opinions, provided they be not restrained by racks and forfeitures from the exercise of that worship which their consciences approve.—lf .' )e s riew?, in vain then have Americans allociated into one great national union, under the express condition of not being ffiackled by re ligious tests ; and under a firm persuasion that tnev were to retain when aflociated, every natu 'al right not expressly surrendered. Is it pretended that they, who are the objeifts of an intended exclusion from certain offices of honor and advantage, have forfeited by an ads, or trea *Oii against the United States, the common rights °\ n r at V ,e » or r^e stipulated rights of the politi cal iociety, of which they form apart ? This the ■wthor has not presumed to aflert. Their blood •owed as freely (in proportion to their numbers) t0 ,ei "snt the fabric of independence as that of ot their fellow-citizens: They concurred boil P C '' la P s g rea *cr unanimity than any other .? ■' 01 lne n, in recommending and promoting *t government, from whose influence America 1 icipa;esall thebleffings of jullice, peace, plen y> goou order and civil and religious liberty. v character ihall we then give to a fyftwn of WEDNESDAY, June 10, 1789. . policy-, for the express purpose of diverting of rights legally acquired thole citizens, who are not only unoffending, but whose conduct has been highly meritorious ? These observations refer to the general tenden cy of the publication, which I now proceed to conlider more particularly. Is it true as the au thor Hates, that our forefathers abandoned their native home ; renounced its honors arid comforts, and buried themselves in the immense forefts of this new world, for the fake of that religion which he recommends preferable to any other ? Was not the religion which the emigrants to the four southern States brought with tliem to Ame rica, the pre-eminent and favored religion of the country which they left ? Did the Roman Ca tholics who firft came to Maryland, leave their native foil for the fake of prelerving the Protes tant church I Was this the motive of the peacea ble Quakers in the settlement of P