The Agricultural Holdings {England) Act, 1883. 35 
It will be seen that there are some saving words which carry 
out in spirit an old enactment : — 
" There w<as a law of Don Fernando — 
'No man shall do more than he can do.' " 
If the details mentioned in § 19 are not to be had by reason of 
the farmer's neglect or his muddled accounts, it is clear that the 
referees cannot give them ; and it would not be just to deprive 
farmers of compensation in such cases when the evidence 
in their favour might be clear aliunde : for example, in the 
condition of the land, as showing value to an incoming tenant. 
In the Act of 1875 this same consideration was given to 
claimants of compensation, and the particulars required were 
to be given " as far as reasonably may be." In the new Act 
" so far as possible " are the equivalent words. Tenants, how- 
ever, will do well not to rely too implicitly on this loophole of 
escape, for, though their claims may not be barred by want 
of the particulars specified in § 19, they will certainly risk, by 
neglect in this matter, the loss of some of the compensation 
which might otherwise have been given to them. 
{d) Another item usually specified in the award (though the 
Act does not make this imperative) will be the costs of or attend- 
ing the reference. These will include the remuneration of the re- 
feree or referees and umpire, and " other proper expenses." The 
Act repeats the provisions of 1875 upon this point, and gives to 
the tribunal the fullest powers of ordering the whole or any part 
of the costs to be paid by one party to the other ; or of ordering 
payment to be divided between the parties in such proportion as 
they think just, " regard being had to the reasonableness or 
unreasonableness of the claim of either party in respect of 
amount or otherwise, and to all the circumstances of the case." 
(§ 20.) Speaking generally, the section seems to contemplate 
that costs will follow the event. Its effect should be to prevent 
either party, to use a common phrase, from "opening their 
mouths too wide ;" for unreasonable claims or counter-claims 
will be punished by costs, especially if they lengthen the inquiry 
and involve adjournments and delay. So, too, confused and 
inaccurate accounts, adding, as these frequently must, to the 
relerees' labours, and thus prolonging the reference, may 
properly be visited by the same punishment. If costs are not 
mentioned in the award, each party will pay his own. Sup- 
posing an unreasonable claim to be mixed up with others not 
open to the same objection, that fact would suggest payment by 
the claimant of so much of the costs as might thereby be fairly 
chargeable on him. It might, for example, appear that, but for 
this item in a tenant's claim, the landlord would not have 
D 2 
