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].

Voltaire writes that although he is almost unknown to Byng, he felt it his duty to send him a copy of a letter that he had just received from Richelieu in the hopes that the judges will do him justice.

Voltaire writes that he has received d’Alembert’s letter dated 1 December and thanks him for his excellent work honouring the memory of du Marsais. He adds that he can never thank him enough for backing him up with his eloquence and reasoning as they say he did about the infamous murder of Servetus and the virute of tolerance in the Geneva article (which Voltaire notes he eagerly awaits). Voltaire then writes that wretches have tried to justify the assassination of Servetus and that these wretches are priests, though he admits that he has not read any of their works. One of these priests, whom Voltaire calls a rascal, asked the Council of Twenty-Five of Geneva for communication of the trial which, Voltaire writes, ‘will make Calvin forever execrable’ and the boarded viewed with contempt. He then asks d’Alembert who the other young priest is that wants to pass him off as a loan shark, questioning whether d’Alembert borrowed at usury from the Battle of Kollin, noting that d’Alembert had condessed that at the battle of the 5th everyone had to advance him money. Discussion then turns to war and Voltaire writes that the Austrians avenge and humiliate them terribly, noting that they have made thirteen attacks at the same time on the Prussian intrenchments, and that these attacks lasted six hours. He writes that ‘never was a victory more bloody and more horribly beautiful’, quipping that the French are more expeditious, completing their business in 5 minutes. Voltaire then discusses Frederick II, King of Prussia, remarking that Frederick always sends him verses, sometimes in despair and sometimes as a hero, and that he tries to be ‘a philosopher in my hermitage’ upon receiving them. He adds that Frederick achieved what he always wanted (to beat the French) but that the Austrians laugh at him. ‘Our shame of the 5 gave him glory’, Voltaire writes, ‘but he will have to be content with this passing glory, too easily purchased. He will lose his states with those he has taken.’ In response to d’Alembert’s suggestion that Voltaire writes a biography of Frederick II, Voltaire writes that Frederick will allow noone to write his story except for himself. Concluding the letter, Voltaire writes that there are aspects of the eulogy of du Marsais that will do great good as ‘it only takes five or six philosophers who agree to overthrow the colossus.’ He adds that he does not wish to prevent people from going to mass or hearing sermons but that it is ‘a question of snatching the fathers of families from the tyranny of imposters, and of inspiring the spirit of tolerance,’ noting that the ‘vine of truth’ has already been well cultivated by d’Alembert, Diderot, Bolingbroke, David Hume, etc. He ends by sending d’Alembert the good wishes of Marie-Louis Denis [née Mignot] [née Mignot] and asking if her ever sees the blind clairvoyant, charging d’Alembert with informing the clairvoyant that Voltaire is still very attached to her if so.

Voltaire talks of ‘l’abbé Desfontaines’ whom Voltaire claims owes him everything. He notes that he saved Desfontaines’ honour and life from Bissêtre and suspended his criminal trial, and that he begged Desfonaines to make it public knowledge that Voltaire had nothing to do with a ‘miserable edition’ that had ‘disfigured’ his work. Instead, Desfontaines published his letter without permission and added to it a number of criticisms. What is crueller, Voltaire writes, is that Mr Rouillé, the owner of the bookshop, has been told that La mort de César is the work of a bad citizen, and that it was published furtively by Voltaire to defy the rules established by the Keeper of Seals. He notes that Asselin’s honesty must lead him to refute such claims, asking him to refute the claims in the newspapers and to write to Mr Rouillé and adding that René Hérault no longer interferes with the bookshop.

Voltaire complains about the ‘bad sketch’ that Richelieu made d’Argenson read. He adds that he has included a petition for a Champagne gentleman named de Riaucourt, lieutenant in the batallion of St Dizier, whose father had just died. He writes that the widow and seven children had had a trial in the principality of Joinville and, in order to pay the attorney, they have to sell chickens at market for twenty sous. Voltaire notes that to pay for justice they die of hunger. He concludes by asking d’Argenson to protect him from Richelieu and adds that Emilie du Châtelet sends her compliments.