MONTESQUIEU Charles de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de (1689-1755) écrivain

L.A.S. "M" (minute), Paris 2 June 1737, to François de BULKELEY in London; 2 and a half pages in-4. Long letter relating the incarceration at the Bastille of the Duke of Fitz-James, son of the Marshal of Berwick. [Charles duc de FITZ-JAMES (1712-1787), future marshal of France and nephew of Bulkeley, had an Irish cavalry regiment bearing his name, in which served Milord TYRCONNE L, whose uncle had been viceroy of Ireland; the duke had been very insulting with ALEXANDRE, first clerk at the War Ministry. "You scavés the case of the duke of Fitsjames who has been at the Bastille since the day before yesterday. ...] Alexandre, a friend of milord Tirconel, gave him leave without the Duke of Fitsjames knowing anything about it. The Duke went to him and asked him if it was true that he had given leave to my lord Tirconel. It is not surprising, Alexander told him, that a viceroy from Ireland was given some grace and turned his back on him. This is not what I am asking you, said the Duke, but if you had given leave to Mr. Tirconel. It is Mr. d'Angerviliers' case, not mine, and turns his back on him. The Duke took him by the arm and making him turn around and said to him: When a home come moy talks to a home come you (you will notice that Alexandre heard a fake come you) he must answer him and not turn his back on him. Great complaints to Mr. d'Angerviliers and to Mr. Cardinal [de FLEURY]. The Duke Mande at Issy he explains his fact and very well. He receives a letter of postmark which sends him to the Bastille where I saw him yesterday. In the background it is a misery and it is believed that he will be out in two or three days. We even know that he hasn't been out yet. The letter from Mr. d'Angerviliers states that he is to be put in the room of the Duke of Richelieu, who, as you see, has his room marked. The Cardinal wrote a very polite letter to Mrs. La marechale [de BERWICK] above. What he wrote in it was dismayed to learn that Ale