Richardson thanks him for forwarding the telegram.

BR thanks him for his letter.

He writes of a meeting.

Amode agrees to sublet Russell's flat in Russell Chambers for 35 shillings per week. The letter contains the names and addresses of two references.

They write on behalf of Ralph Schoenman and John Tinker; they note that the article in question is a distortion of facts. The lawyers state certain conditions of reparation.

They enclose a letter that they have written to the Daily Sketch. They have also received a reply from the Daily Sketch, implying that the publication is considering the matter.

The letter is at document .113003, record 109707.

Birkbeck warns that, although Tinker may want to keep the matter private, the fact that he was living with his fiancée will no doubt be revealed at trial.

Birkbeck thanks Yule for his letter and asks if he might know when Schoenman will be returning.

Johnson writes on behalf of Ralph Schoenman, who he states will return on or about the 30th of July.

They write about the details of the dispute between the Daily Sketch and Tinker and Schoenman. The lawyers will defend them against any proceedings which may be brought.

They enclose a letter (same as document .113003, record 109707) that they had sent earlier, as well as one from the solicitors acting for the Daily Sketch (at document .113008, record 109712).

He writes that he has received Schoenman's letter and is considering it. A response is forthcoming.

Cannon Brookes is a fellow member of the Athenaeum. He writes about BR's wish to purchase a property in Richmond, and suggests they speak.

A TL(CAR) of a response is on the verso (see document .113011a)

BR suggests that the matter could be settled by correspondence; he is not sure when he will be in London next. He specifies details of the deal. He looks forward to meeting with Cannon Brookes eventually.

This letter is on the verso of document .113011.

Cannon Brookes writes that the price for the Richmond property may be too high. He continues with more details about the deal.

Cannon Brookes writes that he should not be relied upon to arrange the mortgage.

The secretary writes about the sub-letting of BR's flat; it does not relieve him in any way from his obligations under the tenancy agreement.

Before BR sublets his Russell Chambers flat, the references of the new tenant must be checked, although they note that they approved of Mr. Swinnerton, the current tenant.  Swinnerton did not end up leaving and remained BR's tenant until 1923.

They write regarding the destruction of the flat at 29 Millbank. They provide a calculation of its rateable value.

They advise BR that it is unlikely that his tenancy at 29 Millbank will be prolonged, as their clients wish to demolish the building.

They write in order to determine BR's tenancy. They enclose notice determining his right to retain possession of the de-controlled premises, as well as a letter addressed to BR by John Mowlem and Company, authorizing a rent payment (see documents .113021 and .113022).

They write of their authority to pay rent due from BR to Chesterton and Sons for 24 June 1958 and after.

They will soon be in a position to apportion rent for a period between September and December; they must wait for correspondence from the bank.

Perkins is Gavin's secretary. He notes that BR owes Dr. Gavin 10 guineas.

They write regarding the search for a purchaser for the Richmond property.

Someone writes that Rogers is away, but that he will respond to BR's letter as soon as he returns.

Enclosed letter from Major, Son and Phipps is at document .113033, record 109730. Gibbon and Rogers write that, though there have been visitors to the house, not many offers have been made. They note that BR may want to reconsider his decision to accept nothing less than £5000, and to accept the offer of £4600 put forth in the above letter.

Major, Son and Phipps offer £4600 for BR's Richmond property, after their surveyor evaluated its worth to be £4300.

Gibbon and Rogers write that they have notified the agents of BR's acceptance of the offer of £4600.

The attached letter is at document .113035, record 109732—it is sent by the agents of the purchaser.

They are pleased to hear that BR will accept their client's offer of £4600. Their client's name is Dennis Rosen.

They write of their disappointment at hearing that Rosen will no longer be purchasing the house. They agree to put the house on the market at a lower price. A draft of a response is handwritten on the letter.

Rogers writes of a Mrs. Avery's help in taking care of the property, and of her underpayment.

Rogers writes that, since BR has recently paid Mrs. Avery, he will withhold the £3 he planned to give her.

It is asked that Lady Russell forward customs charges for a previously delivered package. Hawks was the Accountant General.

Birnberg has had an acknowledgement from editor Hetherington and has heard from the Guardian's solicitors, Lovell, White and King.

This is a statement of interest from which income tax has not been deducted.

This is an invoice from J. Davis, Builder and Decorator. Each sheet of the document was mistakenly given a separate document number, i.e. 113024–113027.

This is an invoice from L. Frumkin and Co., Wines, Spirits and Cigars.

There are enclosed letters to Lubbock, Heelas, Phillips, Noble and Merriton and a newsclip from the Guardian (none present).

Also in file: a duplicate TL(CAR) at document .113042.

They refer to complaints about an article by John Grigg; they do not agree that it can be interpreted as suggesting that BR is guilty of deceit. They claim that their clients did not intend to make any personal attacks, but only to comment on BR and Schoenman's public attitudes and statements.

They thank him for enclosing letters sent to Orpington people, and ask about other enclosures that were supposed to arrive (regarding the Warren Commission, for example).

He encloses (not present) the Honey letters and the memo on the Warren Commission Report, as well as various replies.

Also in file: a duplicate TL(CAR) at document .113047.

They have had a letter from the Guardian's solicitors and enclose a copy (not present).

Enclosed is a letter from Birnberg to Lovell, White and King (see document .113050, record 109749).

They write to the solicitors of the Guardian regarding the complaints laid against them by BR and Schoenman.

He has had another letter from the Guardian's solicitors, which he encloses (probably document .113051).

Schoenman writes of his being called a renegade and wonders what action can be taken.

Also in file: a duplicate TL(CAR) at document .113054.

Birnberg has written a last appeal to the Guardian's solicitors, Lovell, White and King. A copy of the letter is attached at document .113056.

"On the instructions of Ralph Schoenman I today issued a writ on your behalf against the publishers of Penthouse."

They agree with the courses of action Birnberg has laid out in his previous letters.

This is a draft of an apology concerning an article published in the Daily Mirror. It retracts statements regarding BR's senility and Schoenman's sexuality.

This is a draft of an apology concerning an article published in The Economist which suggested that a statement given by BR at the London School of Economics had been written by Schoenman; they recognize here that it was written by BR. They also withdraw statements made against the integrity of BR and Schoenman.

They write on behalf of BR and Ralph Schoenman. They note that an article published in The Economist of 22 February 1965 is highly defamatory of both BR and Schoenman and ask for an apology to be published and for damages to be paid.

They write on behalf of BR and Ralph Schoenman. They note that an article published in the Daily Mirror of 22 February 1965 is highly defamatory of both BR and Schoenman and ask for an apology to be published and for damages to be paid.

This is a draft of an apology to BR regarding comments printed on 18 February, after the LSE Labour Society meeting. They regret insinuating that BR was being exploited by the two leaders of the BRPF.

The company includes a draft of an apology that it would like printed in the next issue of the newspaper. The draft is probably at document .113063.

He writes concerning the letters to be sent to the Daily Mirror and The Economist, and of the draft apologies, all of which they had previously discussed, and he encloses copies (not present). He acknowledges payment.

Birnberg notes that he has written on BR's and Schoenman's behalf to both the Daily Mirror and The Economist. He has also written to the Beaver, student newspaper of the London School of Economics. In each case, he has requested apologies for previous libels.

BR thanks him for his letters and enclosures. He asks that Birnberg send the cheque to the Atlantic Peace Foundation in due course.

This is a copy of a letter. Howard writes that the articles in question accurately record BR's views and are fair assessments. He notes that liability is denied and that he therefore cannot agree to the proposals contained in Birnberg's letter.

Birnberg encloses (not present) a letter from the Daily Mirror. The next step would be to issue a writ.

Farley asks Birnberg to issue a writ on behalf of BR and Schoenman.

Birnberg thanks Farley for the authorization of the writ. He is sending the papers to counsel.

He has issued writs against the Economist and the Daily Mirror. Enclosed are letters to both publications (see documents .113073 and .113074).

Birnberg writes regarding BR's complaint against the Economist (those addressed are their lawyers).

He writes about the Scandinavian Airlines matter. The claim regarding Schoenman's lost suitcase has been settled.

He writes about the International Union of Socialist Youth and encloses a letter from them. He also encloses a statement he drafted which he will ask that they publish after Ralph approves it. See documents .113077 and .113078 (record 109775).

Ericson is the Secretary General. He writes concerning a statement made by BR concerning an upcoming Communist festival.

Birnberg has received another letter from the International Union of Socialist Youth; they do not agree to publish the suggested statement. Birnberg does not think there is anything else to be done except to write to  Socialist International Information regarding the publication of the statement.

Birnberg writes regarding a published apology in Socialist International Information. This is the best they can do.

He encloses a letter from the British Traders Association; see document .113081.

She thanks him for the letter regarding the British Traders Association and notes that Schoenman is presently abroad. She thinks it may be best to avoid court proceedings by paying the claim.

He encloses a letter he has sent to the Beaver; see document .113085.

Birnberg writes on behalf of BR and his secretaries Schoenman and Farley. He claims that defamatory comments were made in a report of the meeting at the LSE addressed by BR on 15 February 1965. Birnberg asks that they publish an apology.

BR and Schoenman authorize Benedict Birnberg to act on their behalf in the matter of their libel action against the Daily Mirror and The Economist.

He writes regarding The Economist. He asks specific questions about Schoenman's role in BR's address.

He will send £350 to the Atlantic Peace Foundation soon.

Schoenman answers the questions asked in document .113087, record 109784. He writes of BR's address to the London School of Economics.

He encloses (not present) a letter from H. Philip Levy of the legal department at the Daily Mirror, which appeared in that week's New Statesman.

Birnberg thanks Farley for enclosing the letter from the New Statesman.

He has had a reply from Oswald Hickson, Collier and Co., the solicitors acting for the proprietors of The Economist, and he encloses a copy of their letter. Birnberg thinks that the case against The Economist is much stronger than that against the Daily Mirror. He has forwarded papers and a copy of the letter to James Evans.

Birnberg has forwarded this copy of a letter to Farley. The solicitors write about BR and Schoenman's case against The Economist.

He writes regarding the Economist and the Daily Mirror. Birnberg has sent copies of the writs to both newspapers. The Economist has replied, suggesting that they might instead publish a letter from BR. Birnberg wants to know BR's opinion on this course of action.

BR considers the Economist's suggestion to be unsuitable. He wishes to press for the publication of a statement of apology, and to proceed with the writ.

The Daily Mirror is prepared to publish a disclaimer.

Birnberg encloses (not present) the terms of the disclaimer and asks for Farley's instructions in the matter.

BR feels that the terms of the Daily Mirror's disclaimer are inadequate, and he notes several corrections to be made.

Counsel suggests that they ought to agree to the publication of the disclaimer, though it may be inadequate. Such action may indeed help their position since it will reveal the weakness of the Daily Mirror's case.

Attached is the text of the disclaimer; see document .113103. Also in file: photocopies at documents .113100 and .113101.

BR wishes to take counsel's advice and to encourage the Daily Mirror to print the disclaimer.

Birnberg has contacted the Daily Mirror.

Farley writes that the BRPF and the Atlantic Peace Foundation papers are at his house; he will have to send them in the morning.

The disclaimer was published in the Daily Mirror of May 22.

Birnberg attaches a defence with a "request for further and better particulars of the statement of claim". Birnberg lays out the defendant's position. He encloses a copy of the defence at document .113108.

He encloses a copy of the "further and better particulars of the defence". He asks for all copies of his source material.