The manuscript is an autograph letter written in the hand of Trophime Gérard de Lally-Tolendal. It delves into the trial of Thomas-Arthur de Lally and Voltaire’s role in it, particularly through his historical work Précis du siècle de Louis XV (1768). Within, the author meticulously outlines the accusations levelled against Thomas-Arthur de Lally, recounts the events of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and the consequential Battle of Wandiwash (1760), and sheds light on the disloyalty and envy among Thomas-Arthur de Lally’s fellow officers, which significantly contributed to his adverse circumstances. Additionally, the letter references Lettres des Indes à l’auteur du Siècle de Louis XIV (Amsterdam [Paris] [1770].

A document concerning the case of François-Jean de la Barre, and Mr Belleval prepared by or for Voltaire’s great nephew, Alexandre Marie François de Paule de Dompierre d’Hornoy. The document contains abstracts from 50 documents relating to the order of procedure in the trial of de la Barre between 1765 and 1766.

Robinson writes of an accident that has become the talk of Paris, noting that the week before, Mr. du Fournier, a member of the grand conseil, shot himself in Mme. Tansin’s [Tancin’s] house, having excused himself to her cabinet to write a letter. Mme. Tansin sent immediate notice to the grand conseil and they, to avoid any disgrace, took possession of the body and took it away. They then committed Mme. Tansin to prison. Robinson notes that Mr. du Fournier was ruined in his fortunes and frequently spoke of killing himself, adding that he had recently quarelled with Mme. Tansin and that her friends were speaking ill of him for his malicious decision to choose her house as the scene of his death and bring Mme. Tansin into trouble. He then turns to the extraordinary will that Mr. du Fournier had prepared just before his death, noting that he had drawn up a list of Mme. Tansin’s admirers and, having no possessions of his own, distributed her favours to them all, including Mr. Fontenelle, Saladin, and Tronchin. Robinson calls this ‘a new kind of jealousy yt never was thought of by Shakespear.’ He concludes the letter by begging the pardon of Horation Walpole, and of Voltaire for havin in a former letter committed him to the Bastille. He notes that an undated letter from Voltaire has since come to light.

Part of a dossier concerning the trial of Jean François Lefèvre, chevalier de La Barre, mostly documents for the defence prepared by or for Voltaire’s great nephew, Alexandre Marie François de Paule de Dompierre d’Hornoy.

Voltaire begins by asking Marie-Anne de Vichy-Chamrond, marquise Du Deffand for a topic of conversation, saying that he likes to talk to her but does not have a subject on which to write. He states that he is neither devout nor ungodly, and that he is a lone farmer buried in a barbaric country, likening those in Paris to monkeys and those in Ferney as bears. He notes that he avoids both where possible, but that the teeth and claws of persecution have lengthened until his retirement and wish to poison his last days. Voltaire then claims that the King, who is not jealous of either his verse or prose, will not believe his persecutors and will not use his powers to expatriate a 65-year-old patient who has only done good in the country he lives in. He then turns to Jean-Philippe-René de La Bléterie whom he reports is a Janesnist seeking the protection of the Duc de Choiseul. He speaks of his dislike of La Bléterie because he insulted Voltaire in the notes of his translation of Tacitus. Voltaire questions why anyone seeking the favour of the Duc de Choiseul should insult him in passing. He concludes with a discussion of the ‘innocent and cheerful pieces’ that the Marquise spoke to him about, asking how he should send them to her, and musing on whether sending them to her would result in malicious jokes and slander.

Extrait d’une lettre d’Abbeville du 7 juillet 1766′. [D.app.279] In this letter, Voltaire writes that a resident of Abbeville named Belleval lived intimately with L’abbesse de Vignacour. Two young men arrived in Abbeville and the abbess received them at home and housed them in the convent as they were her cousins. The abbess preferred the younger of the two men, the Chever de la Barre, to Belleval and so he grew jealous and resolved to take revenge. Voltaire writes that Belleval knew that the Chever de La Barre had committed great indecency 4 months earlier and had been criticised for not removing his hat at a procession carrying the Blessed Sacrament, so he ran from house to house recounting these tales. He then went to all of the witnesses and threatened them, forcing the judge of to hear the case. The judge, however, discovered that Belleval’s son had been the leader of the indecent acts with which the Chever de la Barre was involved. Belleval, Voltaire notes, made his son escape with Sr de Talonde and the son of the mayor of the city then had the Chever de la Barre followed by a spy, leading to his arrest. Voltaire notes that he was in Abbeville on business when de la Barre and an acomplice named Moisnel were escorted there from Paris, writing that there was great consternation in the city. In an ‘Autre extrait’ appended to the tale, Voltaire writes that the accused were condemned by the Paris parliament to have their tongue and fist cut off, their heads cut off, and their body thrown into flames. This happened to the Chever de la Barre but a similar fate had not yet befallen Moisnel. Several lawyers signed a consultation proving the illegality of the judgement (of 25 judges, 15 opined death, and 10 opined light correction.)