Such testimony as was produced against Luxembourg was not deemed by his judges sufficient to warrant his conviction, even though a minister of state was eager for his ruin. He was, in consequence, set free on the 14th of May, 1680. Notwithstanding the duke’s acquittal, Louis banished him from the court, and he remained in exile till the summer of 1681, when he was recalled, and resumed his duties as captain of the body-guards. It is somewhat remarkable, that Louis never made the slightest allusion to what had passed. For ten years, Luxembourg remained without a command. In 1690, however, Louis himself placed him at the head of the army in Flanders. Luxembourg had scarcely taken the field, before he gained the splendid victory of Fleurus. The fall of Namur, or of Charleroi, would probably have been the result of this success, had he not been thwarted by the malignant Louvois, who forbade his besieging either of those fortresses, and deprived him of the best part of his army, to reinforce Boufflers. In the succeeding campaigns, Luxembourg pursued his triumphant progress, and won the battles of Leuze, Steenkirk, and Neerwinden. Such a number of standards were taken, and sent to be hung up in the cathedral of Nôtre Dame, at Paris, that the Prince of Conti wittily denominated him “the tapestry-hanger of Nôtre Dame.” Irritated by his defeats, William III. is said to have exclaimed, “Am I never to beat that hunchback?” “Hunchback!” said the duke, when he was told of this speech, “what does he know about it? He has never seen my back!” The career of Luxembourg was abruptly closed, by an illness of only five days, on the 4th of January, 1695. Several persons of distinction were censured by the “Chambre Ardente,” and were, in consequence, forbidden the court, or sent into exile. Among the latter was Madame de Polignac. The monarch was so decidedly hostile to her, that, five years afterwards, he spoke of her with unmeasured severity, and interfered to prevent the marriage of her son with Mdlle. de Rambures. It was said, that she had once formed the scheme of giving him a philtre, to inspire him with a passion for her. One of the humbler class of culprits who was imprisoned in the Bastile, and who finally suffered the extreme sentence of the law, was Stephen de Bray, described as the accomplice of James Dechaux and Jane Chanfrain, who were perhaps rivals of La Voisin and her confederates in their detestable trade. The crimes alleged against him were blasphemy, sacrilege, and poisoning, and he was burned at the Grêve.