The document claims that Rouph, the procureur du Roi in Gex, and father of ten children, purchased in 1767 the office of controller in the salt granary of Gex under the name of Duprez, who has since died. It states that he paid for this office and for the various associated taxes a sum of eight thousand seven hundred and eleven livres. He therefore hopes that the Controlleur Général will order that he be reimbursed by justifying his titles.

The appeal notes that Sédillot, now aged 90, managed for nearly sixty years the job of receiver of the salt granary in Gex. It goes on to note that Sédillot’s son has worked with his father for the past twenty years, and that they are both gentlemen. The appeal concludes that both men easily sacrificed their interests and lost their place for the good of the province. They therefore implore the Controlleur Général to protect them.

A similar but shorter version of the report in Voltaire Foundation MS 32 A, consisting of seven articles concerning the rights of the people of the Pays de Gex. Articles 8 and 9 are missing from this copy. The hand, whilst the same as MS 32 (B) is much more elaborate in this copy and almost all of the marginal notes have been removed. The articles are as follows: 1. The Pays de Gex has been disunited from the five large farms 2. Inhabitants of the Pays de Gex are allowed to trade with foreigners as they see fit 3. They wish that the salt tax be imposed every year in each of the communes 4. The nobility, clergy, and other privileged individuals wish to be subject to the taxation of salt ordered by the preceding article 5. The price of each minot of salt shall be fixed at the sum of 23 livres in accordance with the decree of the Council of 26 August 1738 6. If the Pays cannot provide the amount of salt specified, their families and Bertiaux should be allowed to provide the additional salt as they see fit 7. The findings of the three orders of the Pays de Gex will be carried out in the presence of the general tenderer of the farms or his clerk

Clément Charles François de Laverdy writes to Jean Charles Philibert de Trudaine de Montigny explaining that he is sending him copies of the King’s replies to Articles 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the books of Bresse and Bugey, and Articles 4 and 12 of the book of Gex. He asks de Trudaine de Montigny to take care of it as soon as possible. These copies are included in the MS 39 collection (B-E)

Voltaire begins by expressing his gratitude to the reipient’s father for his longstanding kindness. He then turns to an account of a crime in the Pays de Gex. Voltaire writes that the son of a bourgeois from Saconey in the Pays de Gex was assassinated by a priest from a village named Moens, and by several peasant accomplices of the priest. He notes that the crime was committed on 28th January, and that it is currently 3rd January, yet only a weak procedure has been started by the justice of Gex. Voltaire adds that he saw the son of Sr. de Croze wounded and in bed, just waiting for death and that Sr. de Croze gave him a mémoire to send to the attorney general on his behalf as he was too old to pursue the matter himself. Voltaire begs La Marche to have the victim represented to him. He states that the officers of the justice of Gex were very eager to raid the scene two years ago when six walnuts were stolen from Voltaire’s land and a very light saber blow was given to the arm of the thief, hearing fifty-two witnesses in the hopes that Voltaire would pay their expenses (he adds that he did not). However, he writes that today it is a question of public safety, of a proven assassination, of a dying person, and of two wounds, adding that he believes they need La Marche’s authority to encourage the officers of Gex to do all due dilligence as deserves such an extraordinary case.

Voltaire writes that it is right for him to take an interest in the poor inhabitants of Ferney despite not being their Lord as he has been unable to sign the contract with Monsieur De Boisy until now. He notes that Monsieur l’Intendant de Bourgogne, Monsieur le Président de Brosses, and a few other magistrates have done him the honour of informing him that they will do everything in their power to soften the ‘vexation’ that these poor people feel. Conversely, Sieur Nicot, prosecutor at Gex, has sent word to the Communers of Ferney that the curé de Moëns, their persecutor, has claimed that he will prosecute them to the limit. Voltaire adds that he has proof of this claim in the form of a letter. He begs Fabry to inform the Intendant that he shares his functions and sentiments, asking him to point out three things. First, that it is strange that a priest should ask the poor for £1500 of expenses for an annuity of thirty pounds. Second, that the Communers of Ferney have pleaded under the name of the poor and, under Roman laws recognised in Burgundy, are entitled to act in forma pauperum. Third, that the priest of Moëns has made the voyage to Dijon and Mâcon for other trials and that it is not fair that he should have counted in the expenses for the poor of Ferney all of the journeys he took to make others unhappy. Voltaire then turns to a second matter. He writes that a Genevan named Monsieur Mallet, a vassal of Ferney spoiled the high road for a length of arounf four hundred fathoms when building his house and has not restored this road. Voltaire adds that day by day the road is becoming more impracticable and he asks Fabry if he thinks that Mallet should contribute a considerable part to the necessary reparation of the road and offers to pay the workers on the road a small sallary. Voltaire repeats that he undertakes these cares even though Ferney does not belong to him, as he only has the promise of sale and the authorisation of the whole family of Monsieur de Budée to do whatever he sees fit in the land. He then discusses the various reasons for the delay, including the uncertain claims of neighbouring lords.

A letter from Jean François Joly de Fleury de La Valette to Daniel Charles de Trudaine about a draft judgement which had been sent to him on the 18th of November 1760 for a meeting at Bugey. Joly de Fleury points out some small errors in the draft, such as Chezery being called a town rather than a valley, then advocates for the inclusion of the lands of Ballon [Ballon d’Alsace], seeing as it is four or five times larger than the valley of Chezery. Joly de Fleury asks not to speak of laws and customs because he lacks sufficient knowledge of them but concedes that it is necessary to discuss the reunion of territories and obtain the proper letters and patents. He says that he thinks it would be commendable to include in the preamble the memoirs and representations that have been produced for Burgey and Gex. Joly de Fleury writes then that he has attached a revised draft of the declaration and that he thinks it would be appropriate to unite the valley of Chezery with Nantua and Ballon with Seyssel. He has begun the letter halfway down p.1 indicating his respect for Daniel Charles de Trudaine.

Jean François Joly de Fleury writes that he is sending back two memoirs given to Daniel Charles de Trudaine by the General Farm concerning the union made between Chezery and Ballon by the Treaty of Turin. He says that he has visited these regions so that he is in a position to give his opinion—with full knowledge of the facts—on all questions that may arise from the execution of the treaty. Joly de Fleury claims that the Treaty will prevent smuggling, and this was evidenced to him when, a few days before his visit to Seyssel, they chastised an employee who boarded a boat. The remaining question, he notes, is whether the valley of Chezery should be united with Ballon [Ballon d’Alsace] or the Pays de Gex, a matter which has already given rise to numerous memoirs. Joly de Fleury has begun the letter halfway down p.1, indicating his respect for Daniel Charles de Trudaine.

Etienne François writes that he had had the honour of asking Jean Charles Philibert de Trudaine de Montigny for his opinion in June on the plan to separate Gex from the five large farms. He is impatient for his response because the Director of the farms of Belley has put an inhabitant on trial which may hinder the removal of the privileges of this province and which may be detrimental to the views that it is to be repopulated and revitalised. He therefore askes again for clarifications from Jean Charles Philibert de Trudaine de Montigny.

Voltaire writes that he is touched by de Laurencin’s letter. He notes that he has been in the Pays de Gex for thirteen years and, whilst he has his fortune, his age, the snow that surrounds him eight months a year, the disturbances of Geneva, and the interruption of trade has made him think of acquiring somewhere in a milder climate. He adds that he was offered twenty houses near Lyon. Voltaire then notes that he would like to live with de Laurencin but there are too many people that depend on him for him to leave Ferney. He notes that he gave his niece the land he lives on, and married a descendant of Corneille to a gentleman from the neighbourhood, with the couple and their children staying in his château. He adds that he also has to attend to two other households, an impotent parent, a chaplain that was previously a Jesuit, a young man whom Richelieu entrusted to him, and numerous servants, and that he must govern the Pays de Gex because the cessation of trade with Geneva prevents farmers from being found. He concludes that he must stay at Ferney, whatever the weather, and adds that his disadvantages are compensated for because he pays nothing to the King and is perfectly free except in the jurisdiction of justice. He thanks de Laurencin again and notes that he would like to send him some books, beginning with a small writing that he has given to Mr. Tabarau to give to him as it is difficult to pass books from Geneva to Lyon.