§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ In reply to Lord LOVAT,
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Bill did 5 not propose any interference with freedom of contract, nor prevent any mode of agreement as to permanent improvements in Part I. of the 1st Schedule. The tenant, under the Bill, could make no claim whatever for compensation with respect to such improvements, unless he had before their execution obtained the consent of the landlord. The landlord could, of course, make any agreement that he pleased with the tenant; but, without agreement, the mere refusal of consent on the part of the landlord was a bar to any claim on the part of the tenant.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he was ashamed to find, when he saw his Question in print, that it was not in as good English as it ought to have been. [Laughter.] He would ask his noble Friend, who knew what it meant, to imagine the Question put in better language than it now stood in—namely. Whether the Government, will consider the practicability of introducing into the Bill some provision for alleviating the great hardship now suffered by the family of any clergyman if he dies while occupying his glebe, as many clergymen have lately found themselves reluctantly compelled to do?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, the noble Earl had asked him a Question, the wording of which he could not undertake to correct, but which he would read to the House. The noble Lord having done so, resumed, by saying that its language was rather confusing; but he would answer it as well as he could. He thought he quite understood the nature of the hardship referred to and the reluctance. Indeed, some cases of the sort that he knew of had been very distressing; but they could not undertake in this Bill to deal with a question of that kind, as clergymen in occupation were their own landlords, and not tenants. If such cases were to be dealt with it must be by a distinct measure.
House in Committee accordingly.