With regard to the questions on the Adjournment, I cannot see how the subject matter of Question No. 3 can be raised.

May I point out that originally the question was addressed by me to the President, but it was changed to the Minister for Justice, apparently by the Ceann Comhairle, or by his direction in his office. I addressed it to the President, fully realising that it was not a matter that came directly under the Department of Justice, and I addressed it to him in his capacity as Leader of the Majority Party here. The main purpose of the question was to give him an opportunity of indicating that the Majority Party in this House, as a whole, was not going to tolerate any abuses by Judges on the Bench.

I could not accept it in that sense.

The question was sent in to the office by the Deputy addressed to the President, but the change to the Minister for Justice was not made in our office. The practice is to send a question to the Minister to whom it is addressed unless it is obvious that it should be to some other Department, but the Minister to whom it is addressed may transfer it to another. The Ceann Comhairle has no power to compel Minister to answer questions, and, therefore, has no power to compel a particular Minister to answer. The Deputy's statement as to what he requires to raise shows that it is not a matter for an Adjournment debate.

The President made a remark which I did not catch.

I said that I could not accept any question in my capacity as Leader of the largest Party here.

That means, in other words, that in regard to a matter for which the House as a whole might be regarded as being responsible the President does not intend to take the initiative?

That is another matter.

Are we to take it that in this case the President does not intend to do anything?

No. If what the Deputy has in mind is a general question, I am prepared to consider it free from politics. It is not a question for a political party, but rather for the House to deal with. It is on that basis that it should be considered. It is a matter on which I am prepared to cooperate.

I am in difficulties as to what the President means by "politics."

Question and answer across the House will not make the matter clearer.

On a point of practice would it not be advisable, when a Deputy puts down a question of this character, that the remarks to which he refers should be quoted for the benefit of the House?

As a matter of practice, quotations are not allowed in questions.

I understand from the Minister that he does not intend to introduce amending legislation. I, therefore, asked for an opportunity on the Adjournment to express my views on the matter, and to convince the Minister of the necessity for the introduction of such legislation.

The procedure on the motion for the Adjournment is intended to be rather in the nature of elaborated question without the restrictions which, I was going to say, are imposed, but I should say ought to be imposed, at Question time. The Chair does not look with favour on the idea of advocating legislation on the Adjournment. I think that legislation should be advocated rather by way of motion than by discussion during the half-hour available for the Adjournment proceedings.

In view of the suggestion from the Chair I shall avail of an opportunity to put down a motion.

With regard to item No. 7—the Vote on Account—when is it proposed to take the discussion on that?

I hope at an early hour this evening, after the Land Bill. If not, to-morrow.

Is it not desirable that we should have at least a week? I understand the discussion will not take long. In view of that I think it should be postponed until this day week.

Will the Deputy consider that a very short period will be allowed for the consideration of the Central Fund Bill by the Seanad? The Deputy will understand, owing to the proximity of Easter and the desirability of not sitting during Holy Week, that very little time is available. To that extent. I desire that the utmost possible expedition would be employed in dealing with these matters.

I appreciate the point of view of the Government in the matter, but I think we ought to have had earlier notice of the introduction of the Vote on Account. I think, furthermore, that the Estimates should be in the hands of Deputies earlier than this morning. I received mine only this morning.

I think the usual practice has not been to discuss the Estimates on the Vote on Account, but to discuss some subject of general interest rather than the Estimates.

In that connection would it not be desirable to give the Opposition reasonable notice of the introduction of a Vote on Account? We are not responsible for the business of the Government in the House. I am sure the Minister is aware of the custom which has grown up of having a discussion on the Vote on Account. Surely he was bound to let the House know that he would introduce the Vote on Account this week, and so enable us to have an adequate discussion here of any one subject.

I would like to assure the Deputy that every possible effort was made to get the Estimates out without any attempt at delay. There would be an adequate opportunity next week to discuss whatever matter escaped the Deputy's mind. I am sure there are very few matters he allows to escape his mind.