To our mind, the apprentice system here revealed does not seem devised for the best interest of the child. Too much power for good or ill lies with the master. If he so wishes, there seems to be little to prevent his letting his charge remain in a state of childish and unprofessional ignorance. The long term of service, the wide power of master upon man seem devised to add to the master’s profits, not to his charge’s skill. The _valet_, _sergent_ or _aloué_, i.e. hired man, was an individual who had finished his term of service as apprenticeship but had not yet risen to the dignity, as master, of having an establishment of his own. Women of this grade, in gilds to which they were admitted, were called _chambrières_ or _meschinettes_. Usually the master could have as many _valets_ as he wished, but occasionally the number was limited so as to prevent rich and attractive workshops getting many _valets_, and, accordingly, something approaching a monopoly of the trade. A _valet_ who had been trained outside Paris had to present evidence that he had done the preliminary term elsewhere. Of such a man, too, it was possible to require a kind of surety or testimonial of a fair dismissal from a former employer. Evidently the narrow mediaeval view of protection of home industries led to the discriminations against workmen from outside, for we read, “It is ordered and decreed that no person of the said gild should hire any foreign man so long as he can find a workman who is a member of the gild.” Care was taken too that disgrace and scandal should not fall upon the gild through _valets_ of bad character. “_Rêveurs_, scoundrels, murderers, knaves, thieves, men of ill fame” are stipulated as improper candidates, and a wool-weaver whose relations with a woman were a by-word “was sent out of the city and forbidden the trade until he should amend his character.”