Tue recent decision of the Jocal St. Andrew's Society to give neither ball nor dinner this year in honour of their patron saint will no doubt have been regretted by many. It is perhaps only natural that those who have hitherto enjoyed the yearly munificence of the Soviety should feel a little disappointed, particularly Indies and all who are fond of dancing. The dinners which in former years used to mark the auniversary reflected oven greater honour on the Scolsmen than the balls that have lately been preferred. The latter entertainments afforded a fine opportunity for the display of elegant tastes and the exorcise of Invish hospitality; the former wore remarkable for some of the fin er speeches ever dolivore inst. The' Bards and Authors' and the ' Kicks and Universities' were honoured, in most instances, by oratory of whioh no society in the world, per-limps, need have been ashamed, and it is undeniable that if such speakers exist among us now as flourished then, the abolition of the annual St. Audrow's Dinner has deprived them of their only Opportunity of exercising their rare talent. On higher grounds, Lowever, we are by no means disposed to regret the omission of any public act of hospitality this year, The St. Audrow's Society is, as we believe, a charity able institution, the prime object of which is to afford pecuniary assistance to Scotemen in distress; and the aunanl ball or dinner, which is given by subscription among the members, is supposed to provide funds on which to draw for charitable purposes. In one sense, in fact, it may be called commercial speculation, the profit of which is to be devoted to charity; and if the end in view lind always been attained by the promoters, it is clear that tie harder the times the greater the necessity would be for raising funds. It is stated, however, that the hardness of the times, and the conse. quent impecuniosity of people generally, constitute the reason why there is to be neither ball nor dinner this year; the conclusion being that latterly, at all events, the annual festivity, instend of being a source of profit for the benefit of distressed Scotsmen, us actually Joft a loss, which hins of course to be defended by the Society. If this be the fact—ns we bell is clear that the Society should not entertain at all unless they con make a profit out of the affair. The raison d'étre of the Society is not to exercise elegant and munificent hospitality for the delectation of Indies and other visitors, but to provide fands for the deserving poor. As long as an entertainment does this, well and good; then the more they give the better. But the moment it is found that they cannot give enter-fainments without realising a heavy loss, the very ranson for doing so no longer exists, and it behoves Uliem as a charitable Society to abstain, In a word, the hospitality exercised by any such association should be of precisely the sumo nature as the hospitality recommended by St. Paul to bishops. It is not to be imagined that the Apostle was insnloating the duty of giving di ner-parties and balls to rich people, but rather that of feeding the poor and hangry; and unless the St. Andrew' Society can procure the means of exe! cising charity to those who need it by entertaining those who do not, they are right in abandoning a custom which does not forward the ends for which they exist.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.