Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction at the instance of the Bishop of the Isles, of a tack of teinds granted by his predecessor Mr. John Stewart of Ascog, upon these grounds:
1st, The same was set for money-duty, whereas the teind was payable in rental bolls, which was a dilapidation of the benefice, contrary to the act of Parliament:
2d, The tack was granted during the standing of another tack for years then to run, when the setter was about to be translated to another Bishoprick:
Answered: It appears by a tack set in the year 1607, a little after the act of Parliament, that the ipsa corpora of the teinds were set to the tacksmen, which argues, that no rental bolls were in use to be paid for these teinds, especially there being no rental of the Bishoprick produced, wherein rental bolls are inserted as the teind-duty, albeit the tacksmen have been in use to receive bolls for the teind-duty from the heritors: 2d, The taking of the new tack was a renunciation of the former, which was lawful to any body.
The Lords having examined the heritors of the Isle of Bute, who declared, that the duty in use to be paid for the teinds of the whole Isle, to the Bishop and Ministers, was such a number of bolls, whereof the Bishop had a fourth; the Lords found, That the duty quoad the Bishop's part, was in the case of rental bolls, and could not be converted to money, and therefore found the tack null; although, since the year 1607, the tack-duty had always been money and not victual; and that the present silver-duty was twice as much as used to be paid to fomer Bishops, and so was not a diminution, but a raising of the rental.
