The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-21 00:00:00

COMPANIES BILL.

Mr. MALINS said he hoped that the President of the
Board of Trade would not proceed with the bill this ses-
sion, but that he would bring it forward next year.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the bill in question had been
prepared with great care, but as it proposed very consider••
able alteration in the law, it was intended to abandon the
bill this session, but it would be brought forward next
session.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION IN THE COUNTRY.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR drew attention to the defects
of the existing postal system in the country. He himself
received a letter from a distance of five miles which was
four days coming, and he complained that the Post-office
did not avail itself of the facilities afforded by railways for
the rapid transmission of letters.
DELAY IN PRODUCING RETURNS.

Mr. CHILDERS drew attention to the fact that a return
ordered two months ago, in connection with the Treasury,
was not produced until this morning.
Mr. LAING said this was the first time that he had
heard anything relative to the return alluded to, but he
would inquire into the subject, and take care that in future
no unnecessary delay should take place. With respect
to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. D. Seymour) there
had been no commission to inquire into the subject of pos-
tal communication, as the commission sitting was appointed
for a different purpose. This question was always open to
the consideration of the Postmaster-General. The reason
why the Post-office did not avail itself of facilities for the
conveyance of letters in certain districts was on the ground
of economy, and the post-office was a self-supporting insti- ,
tution.

THE MASSACRE IN SYRIA.
Mr. MONSELL drew the attention of the noble lord
(Lord Palmerston) to the explanation ha had given to his
(Mr. 3lonsell's) question the other day. The noble lord
had said that the hostilities in Syria were commenced not
by the Druses, but the Maronites, and he endeavoured to
exonerate the Turkish Government from any blame in the
transaction.

Lord PALMERSTON said it was not by any means
desirable that the Turkish Empire should be dismembez ed,
which the hon. member appeared to approve of; but he
did not say to which foreign Power he would have that
empire transferred. There was no doubt much to be com-
plained of with regard to Turkish rule, and it was not
from any regard for the Turkish character that he
was opposed to any such dismemberment, but because
it would lead if not to an European war,
to consequences of a very serious description.
He contended that the Maronetes had commenced the dis-
turbances, and he referred to the statements of Lord Cow-
ley and other competent persons in support of that asser-
tion. Although some of the Turkish authorities and offi-
cers acted in the way described, the conduct of the Turkish
Government subsequent to the disturbances, proved that it
was not favourable to the cause of the Druses in regard to
these disturbances.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
Lord C. PAGET said the statements made by the hon.
member for Sunchrland (Mr. Lindsay) as to the relative
naval strength of France and England were derived from
a French pamphlet. He alluded to the greater number of
French war vessels that were being built in France as
compared with this country.-

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. V. SCULLY strongly deprecated the manner in
which the business of the house had been conducted this
session.