The Common Council assembled on Saturday ; and a dispute

arose between the Lord Mayor and several members who were present, as to the propriety of proceeding with the first subject on the list of business, which referred to alterations in the municipal institutions of the city of London. The Lord Mayor wished to go on regularly; but it was strongly objected, that many of the leading members of the Court were absent, and that a Special Court ought to be called for the discussion of so important a subject. The altercation that ensued is described by the Times as follows. The Lord Mayor said, that it was the duty of the members to attend to the business of their •constitoents ; and that unless very good reasons could be as- signed, he would not consent to pass over any subject upon the paper. -Mr. Pritchard said, that he should prefer a postponement, even beyond the present Mayoralty, to a discussion of such grave matter in the absence of some of the most able and influential members of the Court. Ilis Lordship had dwelt upon this subject in a manner which did not at all meet with the appro- bation of several gentlemen of the Court. The Lord Mayor declared that he was resolved to perform his duty, however disinclined others might be to follow the example. Mr. E. Taylor said, that it would be extremely desirable to have a Specill Court called upon the question.

The Lord Mayor said, that although he had read Mr. Wood's report, he had not read a syllable of the other report ; and was, of course, unacquainted with the contents, except from hearsay.

Several members urged his Lordship to postpone the question, and appoint a special day for its consideration. Alderman Venables, in the midst of the squabble, left the Court to go into the adjoining chamber ; and as there were no more Aldermen present than the Lord Mayor and Alderman Cowan (and three are necessary to constitute a Court), several of the members, who were anxium for an adjournment, cried out " There is no Court." The Lord Mayor—" There is a Court : Alderman Venables has left his hat here, and is in tine next chamber." The members rose for the purpose of departing, when the Lord Mayor or. dered that the officers should prevent any members from leaving the Court, and sent the Sword-bearer to get hold of an Alderman. Immediately afterward& the Sword bearerreturned with Mr. Johnson (who was declared Alderman of Portsoken ward by the Court of Aldermen, but whom the constituency of that Ward never would recognize). The moment Mr. Johnson entered, there was a burst of laughter, and one of the Portsoken members started up, and said "NY Lord Mayor, there are not Aldermen enough to constitute a Court ; that's oat an Alderman" (pointing to Mr. Johnson).

The Lord Mayor—" The business may be proceeded with; there is a Court now."

Mr. Pritchard—" My Lord, you have violated a standing

order in punirf the notice for the consideration of the report at the bottom of the paper. Nita as your authority is, the standing order is paramount."

The Lord Mayor—" I am willing to take upon myself the whole responsibi- lity. I should thank gentlemeu to proceed to business. There is not much sore than a fortnight of my office to run." Mr. Williams (of Watling Street)—" We are extremely glad to hear it, my Lord."

Mr. Pritchard again appealed to the Lord Mayor. Mr. IVorld said, if the Lord Mayor would consent, he had no objection to the postponement. Tho Lord Mayor again repeated, that the subject must be at once taken in its proper order. Mr. Wood proceeded.

Mr. C. Pearson at this !retied entered the Court ; and after some conversation with dr. Wood, addressed the Lord Mayor on the propriety of postponing the important subject relating to the change in the municipal institutions of the City. After having moved an amendment for the postponement of the ques- tion, Mr. Wood consented to let it pass over ; and it was accordingly adjourned. It will not he resumed, we believe, until the next mayoralty. It is ould be diffi- cult to describe the confusion and interruptions and contradictions which abounded its the Court, although we have rarely seen so few persons assembled there.

The Municipal Corporation Commissioners have been sitting as usual during the week ; but have not transacted much business. Mr. Franks gave a good deal of dry information relative to the affairs of the Merchant Tailors Company ; and the Wax Chandlers, Baker s,and Apo- thecaries Companies returned full answers to the inquiries of the Com- missioners. The City Companies generally persevere in their determi- nation to refuse all the information required.

The Committee of Dissenting Deputies have held a meeting, and passed the following resolution.

That as to church.rates, no measure can be satisfactory which will not relieve Dis- senters from all compulsory contribution, direct or indirect, for the maintenance of the edifice used by and of the worship of the Established Church; and that they are not able to devise any means of effoeting this, but by the total abolition of church-rates."

The Patriot, one of the organs of the Dissenting body, observes, in reference to this resolution- ., Of course car .• will be taken to prevent its being supposed that such an abolition of church-rates as Lord Althurp s bill of last session affected to coact, would be Stith,' factory to Dissenters. The substitution of a tax over which they would have no con- trol, tar one user which they have a powerful control—the present to the Establish- ment of a good round charge upon the land-tax in lieu of a troublesome and ttucertain church-rater, under the pretence of relieving the Dissenters—would not be tamely sub- mitted to ; and any repetition of a fraud of this kind upon the country will scarcely be attempted. Rat we cannot target lay whom such au attempt was made; and that Dis- senters are indebted to the firmness of the lions(' of Commons fur resisting a measure more worthy of Sir Robert Inglis than of Lord Al thorp and Lord John Russell."

A meeting of a district branch of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts was held on Tuesday; the Bishop of Win-

chester in the chair. The report was read by the Secretary: it con- tained, as usual, a flaming account of the performances of the Mis- sionaries: and its adoption having been moved, the following scene oc- curred, according to the report in the Times ; which, however seems to be rather highly coloured.

The Bishop of Winchester lamented the loss of the Parliamentary grant of 16,000/. a year, but congratulated the meeting on the success of the Episcopal Bench in wresting 4,0001. a yearfrons the taxes. Archdeacon Hoare indulged in severe censure on the Government in withdrawing the 16,0001. a year and substituting the paltry grant of 4000/. ;

called upon the friends of the Church to resist the reforming spirit of the age, and stand forward as fearless champions in defence of the ancient al- liance of the Church and State; and concluded by reading some dull prosing letters front an old American Bishop, whoumaintained there could be no reli- gion unless supported by the State.

The Reverend C. Griffin, late a missionary of the Society (and who presented a petition to Parliament in 1828, complaining of the corrupt state of the Society's airs, which led to the withdrawal of the Parliamentary grant of 16,000/. a year.) presented himself to the meeting, and begged to propose an amendment to the motion, that the report he adopted, which he attempted to preface by a few words in explanation. This was resisted by outrageous cries from the Bishop

and his partisans; who called upon the Reverend G. B. P. Pullen, Rector of of Liege Bookhain, and Henry Goss, Esq. of Epsom, to turn Mr. Griffin out of the room, as he intended to make a division. These instantly laid violent hands upon Mr. Griffin, but after some remonstrance, desisted. Upon Mr. Griffin's commencing to read his amendment, the attack was renewed, and constables were sent for ; who, with the assistance of the Bishop's livery-servants, expelled Mai with violence from the room.

The account is incomplete; but after the expulsion of refractory Mr. Griffin, we suppose the Bishop had it all his own way, and that the report was adopted.

The Revising Barrister for ,Lambeth district decided on Tuesday, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose name was returned by the Overseer as a ten-pound householder, has a right to vote for Members of Parliament, as no objection had been made to his name being re- gistered. The House of Commons (he said) annually passed resolu- tions against any interference in elections of any of their body by Peers; but the Archbishop was not a Peer: as a Bishop, he was a Lord of Parliament, but not a Peer. [Lord Brougham has, however, given all Peers to understand, that the resolution of the House of Commons is unavailing, and that they may interfere in elections as much as Com- moners.]