titled councillors should be more numerous than the lawyers.  The latter succeeded in completely carrying the day on account of the services they rendered, and the influence which their knowledge of the laws of the country gave them.  As for centuries the sword had ruled the gown, so, since the emancipation of the bourgeois, the lawyers had become masters of the administrative and judicial world; and, notwithstanding the fact that they were still kept in a somewhat inferior position to the peers and barons, their opinion alone predominated, and their decision frequently at once settled the most important questions.

An edict issued at Val Notre-Dame on the 11th of March, 1344, increased the number of members of Parliament, which from that time consisted of three presidents, fifteen clerical councillors, fifteen lay councillors, twenty-four clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Inquiry, and five clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Petitions.  The King filled up the vacant seats on the recommendation of the Chancellor and of the Parliament.  The reporters were enjoined to write the decisions and sentences which were given by the court “in large letters, and far apart, so that they might be more easily read.”  The duties of police in the courts, the keeping of the doors, and the internal arrangements generally for those attending the courts and the Parliament, were entrusted to the ushers, “who divided among themselves the gratuities which were given them by virtue of their office.”  Before an advocate was admitted to plead he was required to take oath and to be inscribed on the register.

The Parliament as then established was somewhat similar in its character to that of the old national representative government under the Germans and Franks.  For centuries it protected the King against the undue interference of the spiritual power, it defended the people against despotism, but it often lacked independence and political wisdom, and it was not always remarkable for its correct appreciation of men and things.  This tribunal, although supreme over all public affairs, sometimes wavered before the threats of a minister or of a court favourite, succumbed to the influence of intrigues, and adapted itself to the prejudices of the times.  We see it, in moments of error and of blindness, both condemning eminent statesmen and leading citizens, such as Jacques Coeur and Robertet, and handing over to the executioner distinguished men of learning and science in advance of the times in which they lived, because they were falsely accused of witchcraft, and also doing the same towards unfortunate maniacs who fancied they had dealings with the devil.

[Illustration:  Fig. 305.—­Trial of the Constable de Bourbon before the Peers of France (1523).—­From an Engraving in “La Monarchie Francoise” of Montfaucon.]