Some time after the repeal (about 1790) of the laws enslaving miners, there would appear to have been experienced a similar difficulty to recruit the ranks of pit-workers, and one of the means adopted to procure workmen was only a few degrees less objectionable than slavery itself. This was what was termed the ‘Bond’ system. A man, more especially when he had a family, some of them coming to be helpful at his calling, had the bait held out to him of a bounty if he signed the bond. By this bond he obliged himself to continue in the employment of his master for a fixed period, varying from one year to four years. In return for this, he received the immediate payment of a bounty, variable in amount in proportion to the period engaged for, and also regulated by the value of the man’s services. As much as five pounds might be given. Should the bond be faithfully carried out by the workman, the master had no claim upon the money; but should the engagement be brought prematurely to an end, he often retained the power to claim the amount as a debt, besides having the right to sue the workman for desertion of service. Of course, the bounty formed a payment over and above the ordinary wages. At the period referred to, it was the practice amongst many classes of workmen in Scotland to leave their usual avocations during the summer months, and fee themselves to farmers in the times known familiarly as ‘hay and hairst.’ From this custom, it was often a serious matter for a coalmaster to find that his workmen had deserted him. The ‘bond’ system was intended partly to counteract this practice, as well as to meet the prevailing unpopularity of the work. The system was a thoroughly bad one for the workmen, as it practically lengthened the period of actual slavery, though nominally that had disappeared. The inducement to sign the bond was very much the same as it now is to join the militia—the bounty-money gave the prospect of a ‘spree’ in both cases, and in this way the system operated badly.