ng a period when he was confined to his room, and could
not, and did not, take part in conducting the _Tribune_. Mr. O'Doherty,
the part-proprietor of the _Tribune_, less fortunate than Mr. Williams,
has been sentenced to ten years' transportation. In Dublin the sentence
on Mr. O'Doherty was not expected to be so severe. He is a young man,
not more than twenty-two, and his high character for humanity, and the
recommendation of the jury, induced the public to believe that, though
the sentence would be severe, the punishment would not so nearly
approach that of those who preceded him in his career. With his
sentence, and the discharge of Mr. Williams, the commission terminated.
Mr. Duffy still remains in the custody of the gaoler of Newgate."

The sentence of death upon the prisoners at Clonmel was afterwards
commuted to transportation, and this was carried into effect. The people
of Ireland felt that the crown had acted with justice and clemency; and
all regretted the necessity of visiting with so severe a punishment men
whose conduct arose from fervent patriotism and honest purpose.

The case of Charles Gavan Duffy was the most remarkable of any which was
brought before the Irish law courts in connection with the insurrection.
Certainly, the charges brought against him were as clearly proved as
were those against any other of the party leaders. Yet the trial was so
managed, and juries were found so obstinate, that notwithstanding the
appearance of the most pertinacious prosecution on the part of the
crown, a conviction could not be obtained. The following extract from a
journal published Saturday, the 23rd of December, exhibits the general
character of the proceedings against Mr. Duffy, and the questions which
were raised to postpone his trial and embarrass the prosecution:--

"On Friday (se'nnight) the important trial of Mr. Duffy commenced,
before Baron Richards and Mr. Justice Perrin, and the first two days
were consumed in arguments for and against the quashing of a former
indictment found in the county of Dublin against the prisoner. On Monday
the court decided the point. The motion of the prisoner's counsel was,
that Mr. Duffy be not called upon to plead to the indictment found
against him by the grand jury of the county of the city of Dublin,
because another and a similar indictment was put in against him in the
county of Dublin; and as it would be an injustice to him to be called
upon to plead to one indictment