They found it as easy to satisfy the committee, or its majority, as the Secretary found it to satisfy themselves.

They advised there should be no opposition given to Mr.
Shiel on these two grounds: First, because success was then impossible, owing to the shortness of the time for preparation.

And secondly, because a failure then would endanger the cause at the general election which was to take place in a few months.

The sincerity of these reasons was tested by the facts, that, at the general election, the same parish priest stood at the hustings to propose and sustain the same official of the Whigs, insolently proclaiming his steadfastness in O'Connell's _glorious principles_, while he was huckstering away the honour and independence of his country; and that at that general election, when the people of Dungarvan were more openly betrayed and trafficked on by John O'Connell, and when they had to contend against the treachery of the priest, the treachery of the Association and the whole strength of the Whigs, they were only defeated in their opposition to Mr.Shiel by three votes.

But, sincere or not, absurd or not, they were conclusive with the committee, or its chairman, who reported that it was not advisable to oppose Mr.Shiel, and this report was published just two days after Mr.
Shiel had been returned unopposed.
No wonder that the actual return of Mr.Shiel, which the committee was charged to resist, had escaped its vigilance; for the celebrated Peace Resolutions were, at the same time, under discussion, and produced simultaneously with the Dungarvan report.