Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
131 
and  requiring  them  to  remedy  their  breaches  of  covenant 
and  make  compensation  for  the  same.  In  November,  1909, 
the  plaintiff  commenced  an  action  against  the  Council,  alleging 
that  they  had  not  remedied  the  breaches  of  covenant  complained 
of  and  claiming  possession  of  the  land.  At  the  trial  evidence 
was  given  that  at  the  date  of  the  notice  all  the  plots  were  in  a 
bad  state  and  condition,  that  at  the  date  of  the  writ  three  or 
four  of  the  smaller  plots  were  in  a fairly  clean  condition,  but 
that  it  would  take  at  least  from  one  to  two  years  from  the  date 
of  the  notice  to  put  the  whole  of  the  12^  acres  in  good  heart  and 
condition.  The  Council  objected  that  the  notice  was  in  general 
terms  and  was  not  divisible,  and  that  a reasonable  time  had 
not  been  allowed  them  to  remedy  the  breaches.  It  was  held 
that  as  sufficient  time  had  not  been  allowed  to  satisfy  all  the 
requirements  of  the  notice,  the  notice  was  premature  and  must 
be  dismissed. 
There  have  been  two  Scottish  cases  under  the  Agricultural 
Holdings  Act  which  are  of  considerable  importance.  Stewart 
v.  Williamson  (1910,  A.C.,  455  ; 80  L.J.P.C.,  29)  came  before 
the  House  of  Lords  on  appeal  from  the  Scottish  Court,  and  the 
question  was  whether  a valuation  of  sheep  stock,  to  be  paid  for 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  lease  at  the  expiry  of  the  lease 
by  the  proprietors  or  incoming  tenant,  should  be  made 
according  to  the  valuation  of  men  mutually  chosen,  with 
power  to  name  an  “ oversman  " or  umpire,  or  be  referred  to 
a single  arbitrator  under  Section  11,  Sub-section  1,  of  the 
Agricultural  Holdings  (Scotland)  Act,  1908,  which  corresponds 
with  Section  13,  Sub-section  1,  of  the  Agricultural  Holdings 
Act,  1908,  now  in  force  in  England.  The  House  of  Lords  held 
that  the  matter  was  one  which  must  be  referred  to  a single 
arbitrator  under  the  Act,  notwithstanding  the  express  provision 
of  the  lease.  It  is  not,  however,  quite  certain  that  the  decision 
could  have  been  the  same  if  it  had  arisen  under  an  English 
lease,  as  the  Lord  Chancellor  pointed  out  that  the  word 
“arbitration”  in  Section  11  of  the  Act  included  such  a 
reference  according  to  the  accepted  Scottish  legal  terminology, 
but  he  said  that  if  this  were  an  English  case  the  authorities 
drew  a marked  distinction  between  arbitration  and  valuation. 
Lord  Halsbury,  however,  went  further  than  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  and  said  that  he  believed  that  the  word 
“arbitration”  had  an  ordinary  meaning  in  the  English 
language  which  prevailed  both  in  Scotland  and  England.  To 
his  mind  it  was  beyond  all  doubt  that  what  the  Legislature 
intended  was  to  sweep  away  all  these  private  arbitraments 
which  the  parties  had  themselves  agreed  upon  and  to  determine 
that  there  should  be  one  uniform  form  of  procedure. 
In  Brown  v.  Mitchell  (1910  S.C.,  369)  it  had  been 
