§ Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the postponement of the trials of the persons accused of illegal practices at the North Louth election, whether the usual, if not the universal, practice of the representatives of the Crown in Ireland in criminal cases is to give private notice of their intention to apply for an adjournment, if such intention exists; whether any such private notice was given to the representatives of the accused in the cases mentioned; whether, in the absence of such notice in those cases, useless expense was incurred by the accused which otherwise would not have been necessary; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will consider the propriety of recouping the accused the amount of money unnecessarily expended by them in consequence of the action of the Crown?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)There is no practice in Ireland of the kind indicated by the hon. Gentleman. In the case in question I do not think any avoidable expense was incurred. The defendants opposed the application for adjournment, and for that purpose counsel would in any 1274 event be engaged. It would be impossible to assume that the defendants would acquiesce in the adjournment; and, lest the motion should fail and the trial proceed, it was necessary for the defendants to be present with their witnesses. The ordinary course was followed, and I do not think there is any ground for recouping the accused.