The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-06 00:00:00

EVENIN-G-,

take such measures as may conduce to unity within the
Church, and to her efficiency as the Church of the
nation; and that so the 5a1%%.,.i0n of souls may be pro-
mf.tEd, and the mists of ignorance., error, and su-
perstition be dispelled by the bright b3ams of God's Holy
Gospel."

The petition was then read by FRANCIS HART DYKE,
Esq., the registrar, and ordered to lie on the table.

While these proceedings were going on in the Upper
House of Convocation, the Lower House had assembled
in an adjacent chamber, under the presidency of the
Very Rev. William Rowe Gyall, D.D., Dean of Canter-
bury.

The Venerable Archdeacon THORPE presented a peti-
tion similar to that submitted to the Upper House by
the Bishop of Chichester.
A long discussion arose as to whether the Lower
House was sufficiently constituted to receive the peti-
tion. Upon a wish being expressed through the Prolo-
cutor that the Archbishop's opinion should be ascer-
tained prior to any further proceeding, the Lower
House was summoned to au interview with the Upper
1.1 ouse.

Upon being admitted, the Prolocutor stated that a
petition had been presented, and it was , the wish of the
members that the opinion of his Grace and the Upptr
House should be obtained on the question of their com-
petency to receive it.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the Lower
House was legally constituted, and was in a position
to receive the document alluded to by the Very Re-
verend Dean.

The members of the Lower House then withdrew,
and on re-assembling in their chamber, the petition
was received, and au order for recording it made. The
Lower House was about proceeding to the consideration
of other business, when the members were again for-
mally summoned to the Upper House, and on being ad-
mitted into the chamber,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY directed Mr. Francis
Hart Dyke to read the following document:—
"In the name of God, amen.—We, John Bird, by
Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate
of all England, and Metropolitan President of the pre-
sent Provincial Synod or Convocation of the Bishops and
Clergy of the province of Canterbury, do by this present
writing continue and prorogue the said Provincial Synod
or Convocation, lately to, and until this day and place,
and continued and prorogued, all and singular the certifi-
cates or returns already made and delivered, and all
others which have not yet been made and delivered, in
the same state in which they are now, until Thursday,
the 28th day of August next ensuing, to a certain upper
chamber, commonly called The Jerusalem Chamber,'
situate in the deanery belonging to the Collegiate
Church of St. Peter, Westminster, with further con-
tinuation and prorogation of days then following and
places, if it shall be necessary to be done in this behalf.
" J. B. CANTUAR."
_ _ _

The reading of this document ereatedconside;able
surprise amongst the members of the Lower [louse, who
were of course prevented from entering upon any further
topics of discussion. There was no alternative, and
bath Howes were then formally adjourned.

REMARKABLE CASE of the EXECUTION of
an INNOCEIVT MAN in FRANCE.
The family of a M. Lesurques, who had been executed
fifty-six years ago, for murder and robbery, had peti-
tioned the Assembly to cause the innocence of the
father to be proclaimed, and that his character should
be re-established. The Assembly ordered a report to
be drawn up by M. Laboulie, and this report is to-day
published by the papers. The facts are of unusual inte-
rest; they are simply these:—
In the month of April, 1795, the Paris and Lyons mail
was stopped at Mongerun by live men on horseback, who,
after murdering the courier and driver, plundered it of its
contents. Among the arrests of persons suspected ot having
been engaged in this crime was a man named Gueno;
but, after undergoing an interrogatory and being
confronted with witnesses, the commissary of police
declared that there were no grounds for further proceed-
ings against him, and he was set at liberty. IThe commis-
sary having seized the papers of Gueno, promised to return
them. On the day following the liberation of Guano
the commissary was engaged in hearing further evidence,
when he was informed by one of his agents that two
women, of the locality where the crime was committed,
were in the room adjoining the cabinet of the commis-
sary, and had there recognised among the persons
present two of the murderers. The commissary had
the women before him, and after reminding them of the
gravity of their statement, desired that one of the men
pointed out should be introduced. This person, to the
astonishment of the officer of justice, was Gueno. The
commissary had a strong conviction of the innocence of this
man, but as the women swore positively that they had
seen him at the place of the murder immediately after
its perpetration, be was compelled to order that he
should remain in custody. When Gueno was asked
why he came to the office of the commissary,
he replied that it was for the purpose of claiming
his papers, and that he was accompanied by a
friend named Lesurques. this was the other man
spoken of by the women. Lesurques was then
confronted with his accusers, and they swore
positively to his identity. The respectability of
Lesurques, great as it was, did not suffice, after
such direct testimony, to induce the commissary to
leave him at liberty. The woman said they recognised
him perfectly, and even described the plated spurs which
they said he wore at the time of the murder. Lesur-
ques, then fore, was also arrested.
Subsequently other persons were arrested, and brought
to trial with Lesurques. Gueno was acquitted, and
Lesurqaes would also have escaped but for an un-
fortunate fatality. Several persons of the highest
respectability established a clear alibi—they swore
that at the time of the murder Lesurques
was with them in Paris. Among those witnesses
was M. Legrand, a wealthy jeweller of the Palais Royal.
This gentleman, who was an intimate friend of the
prisoner's, swore that on the Bth Fierce!, the day
of the murder, Lesurques passed a great part of the
morning at his house, and he mentioned as a proof
that he was not mistaken as to the day, that he
had made, whilst Lesurques was with him, a sale, an
entry of which was in his books. When the books were
produced, however, it was found that the entry was
under date of the 7th, but that the figure 7 had been
altered into 8. This unfortunate circumstance, which
subsequent events have shown to have been an error of
the clerk in first putting a 7 for an 8, was regarded by
the jury, as a proof of perjury on the part of Legrand, to
serve his friend, and the witness was ordered into custody
on a charge of perjury. From this moment the jury paid
very little attention to the defence. The witnesses for the
prosecution, misled by the strong resemblance of Lesur-
ques to a man named Dubosq, who really was one of the
criminals, and was afterwards tried and executed, swore
positively to his guilt, and he was found guilty.
After his condemnation, many circumstances tran-
spired to demonstrate his innocence, and he petitioned
the legislative body for relief from the verdict of the
jury. The petition was referred to the Council of
State, but eventually the law was suffered to take its
course, and Lesuiques was executed. After his
death, a man named Beuldi was arrested as one
of the criminals. This man confessed his guilt, but re-
fused to declare that Lesurques was innocent. Previ-
ously, however, another of the criminals had solemnly,
and, up to the moment of his execution, proclaimed the
innocence of Lesurques, and given the names of all
the murderers, who were five in number. The number
had been sworn to by all the witnesses, but, including
Lesurques, six persons were convicted of the crime and
executed, so that one must have been innocent. The si-
lence of Beuldi still left doubts in some minds as to
the innocence of Lesurques, but six months
aster the death of Bueldi the priest, who had acted
as his confessor, gave up a paper which had been placed
in his heeds sealed by Bueldi, with an injunction that
it should not be opened until the expiration
of that period. In this paper Bueldi declared
before God that Lesurques had nothing to do
with the crime, and was totally unknown to
all the criminals. By the death of Lesurques, his
wife and children Here left destitute, for the confisca-
tion of all his property hal been ordered, and it was
attached by the Governmeat to the senatorie
of M. Count de Jacqueminot, who refused
to accept it, observing that he respected cala-
mity too much to receive property stained with the blood
of an innocent man, and that it ought to be restored to
his family. This noble conduct produced no good to the
family of Lesurques; the property refused by M. Jacque-
minot was subsequently appropriated by the public trea-
sury. Fifty-six years have elapsed since this great judicial
error, by which the life of an innocent and honourable man
was sacrificed, and his family plunged into poverty, was
committed, and up to the present time all the prayers,
petitions, and memorials of that family for the rehabili-
tation of the memory of the victim have been fruitless.
It is hoped now, after the report of M. Laboulie, that all
that human justice can do will at length be rendered.

HORRIBLE MURDER IN PARIS.
(From Galiynani's Negsenyer.)
At the end of fat -Month M. lleafontaines, a manu-
facturer of bronzes, Rue St. Vonore, 422, was obliged
to dismiss his man-servant for misconduct, and he ap-
plied to one of the bureaux de placement (register
offices for servants) for another. The bureau sent a
young man of about twenty-four, who produced excel-
lent certificates, and was at once admitted. Early in
the morning of the 13th the new servant, who had
been about a fortnight in the place, went to
the corner of the Rue Royale, and bargained with two
commissioners to convey three trunks, containing, he
said, goods and patterns, to the Centre Railway, Boule-
vard de l'Hopital. He then took the men to the house, and
having told the concierge that his master had already
left for the railway station, that he was about to join
bias, and that they shoulci;be absent several days, he hel, e 1
the commissionnaires to put the trunks, which were very
heavy, into a hand-cart, and saw them leave. He after-
wards went away himself. The neighbours were greatly
surprised to see the shop of M. Desfontaines closed on
the next and following days; but, to their inquiries, the
concierge said that he had gone with his servant on a
journey which was to last several days. As, however, he
had not spoken of this journey either to his relations or
more intimate triends, and as, moreover, his business re-
quired his presence, sown alarm was felt, and a commu-
nication was made to the commissary of police. An
application was even made to the prefect to cause au
investigation. Things were in this state when, three or
four days ago, the prefi ct of the department of the
Indr© informed the Minister of the Interior that
a horribly-mutliated corpse had been found in ass
railway station at Chateaurous, in a trunk which
had been sent from Paris. This trunk bore the
address, " Moreau, watchmaker, at Chateanroux;"
but no watchmaker of that name resided, or ever had
resided, in the town. The trunk had been opened, in
consequence of a strong smell which issued lons
it. As soon as this intelligence reached the Prefecture
of Police, the recent declaration respecting the dis-
appearance of M. Desfontaines was called to mind,
and orders were given to
.send up the trunk and