[Illustration:  Fig. 306.—­Promulgation of an Edict.—­Fac-simile of a Miniature in “Anciennetes des Juifs,” (French Translation from Josephus), Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, executed for the Duke of Burgundy (Library of the Arsenal of Paris.)]

It is curious to notice with what ingenuity and how readily Parliament took advantage of the most trifling circumstances or of charges based upon the very slightest grounds to summon the officers of the Chatelet before its bar on suspicion of prevarication or of outrages against religion, morals, or the laws.  Often were these officers and the provost himself summoned to appear and make amende honourable before the assembly, notwithstanding which they retained their offices.  More than once an officer of the Chatelet was condemned to death and executed, but the King always annulled that part of the sentence which had reference to the confiscation of the goods of the condemned, thus proving that in reality the condemnation had been unjust, although for grave reasons the royal authority had been unable to save the victim from the avenging power of Parliament.  Hugues Aubriot, the provost, was thus condemned to imprisonment for life on the most trivial grounds, and he would have undergone capital punishment if Charles V. had abandoned him at the time of his trial.  During the English occupation, in the disastrous reign of Charles VI., the Chatelet of Paris, which took part with the people, gave proof of extraordinary energy and of great force of character.  The blood of many of its members was shed on the scaffold, and this circumstance must ever remain a reproach to the judges and to those who executed their cruel sentences, and a lasting crown of glory to the martyrs themselves.

An edict of King John, issued after his return from London in 1363, a short time before his death, clearly defined the duties of Parliament.  They were to try cases which concerned peers of France, and such prelates, chapters, barons, corporations, and councils as had the privilege of appealing to the supreme court; and to hear cases relating to estates, and appeals from the provost of Paris, the bailiffs, seneschals, and other judges (Fig. 307).  It disregarded minor matters, but took cognizance of all judicial debates which concerned religion, the King, or the State.  We must remark here that advocates were only allowed to speak twice in the same cause, and that they were subjected to fine, or at least to remonstrance, if they were tedious or indulged in needless repetition in their replies, and especially if they did not keep carefully to the facts of the case.  After pleading they were permitted to give a summary in writing of “the principal points of importance as well as their clients’ grounds of defence.”  Charles V. confirmed these orders and regulations with respect to advocates, and added others which were no less important, among which we find a provision for giving “legal assistance to poor and destitute