BR explains Bilainkin's case to Boyd Orr. Boyd Orr may see Bilainkin and give BR his opinion on the matter. BR has agreed to sign a letter to the press if there are 2 other signatories. BR writes, "The only hope of rescuing the child is through the intervention of people whose names carry weight. I have suggested that he should appeal to you especially because the questions at issue are largely medical...." BR believes that if Bilainkin's story is true, it reveals widespread legal malpractices.

BR says that he has written to Boyd Orr on Bilainkin's behalf. BR is curious about the letter that Bilainkin drafted to be signed.

Letter is typed on the verso of the copy of the letter BR sent to Boyd Orr (see record 70703).

Bilainkin is deeply grateful for BR writing to Boyd Orr. He informs BR of the latest news from Dr. Gooch and the deputation from the Labour women. Bilainkin will write to Boyd Orr.

Boyd Orr has advised Bilainkin to see the Chief M.O.H. at the Middlesex County Council, or at the Ministry of Health or the N.S.P.C.C. but Bilainkin has already petitioned the Commission on Human Rights, UN. Gooch's lawyer has said that the letter is not safe to sign as it could lead to Gooch being accused of contempt. Lloyd George has written Alfred Robens saying he can do nothing in the case.

Boyd Orr has written that he can do nothing. Bilainkin is working on a piece for Gooch. The lawyer Bilainkin asked to pass the letter drafted by BR has refused because he needs a solicitor.

No papers will publish the interview with BR and Bilainkin. Bilainkin is preparing a reply to Lloyd George and will send a copy to BR.

The document is a copy of a letter sent to Robens giving a history of Bilainkin's fight for Lynne and lists the reprehensible points given by the Home Secretary. Bilainkin lists what a "humane" Home Secretary would do.

Attached is a copy of a petition to the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations.

Bilainkin refers to his interview with BR being published in Sie und Er.

G.D.H. Cole wrote Bilainkin saying he can "scarcely believe the Lutz statement" so Bilainkin sent him the set of extracts of evidence that the judges ignored. The letter BR agreed to sign is still waiting, and Bilainkin asks BR if he knows anyone who could help. Bilainkin has had no success in contacting Miss Sutherland, Chief Woman Officer of the Labour Party, nor has he had any contact with Lynne since July 28, 1956. Bilainkin is under the impression that there is a huge conspiracy against him.

BR is perplexed as to what to do and is curious why the other co-signatories are unwilling to sign the letter BR and Bilainkin drafted. BR asks Bilainkin to forward a letter from BR to the other co-signatories.

The document is a copy of a letter BR asked George Bilainkin to forward to the other co-signatories who are not named. It is addressed to "Dear". BR says he undertook to champion the case if he could obtain the support of 2 or 3 others. BR asks whether Bilainkin deserves support and whether the co-signatories are willing to give it.

A statement issued in advance of BR's address, "A New Approach to Peace", in Manchester on 28 April 1964.

An outline for BR's address, "A New Approach to Peace", given in Manchester, 28 April 1964.

A "List of Advisers" and a "List of Scientific Advisers".

A defeated sounding Bilainkin lacks the means to continue the fight for Lynne, "after fighting for 5 years and losing book contracts, travel commissions and royalty advances". Bilainkin criticizes the N.S.P.C.C. and judges Willmer and Pearce. He believes the only way of saving Lynne is "for famous personages to demand and force public inquiry—into the hidden and rendered evidence—by signing a letter in press."

The Woods have shown the letter that Bilainkin wants them to sign, to their solicitor, Morrow. Morrow will think it over but cautions them and explains some of the troubles Bilainkin has had (secret trials, no news coverage) in the interest of protecting the child. The Woods are familiar with the lawyer for Bilainkin's wife and know him to be a decent man and so are seeking the other side of the story.

Mary Wood writes that Lynne "seems reasonably all right at present" and no longer feels that the child is in danger. Bilainkin's actions are now puzzling, and he has made "ludicrous charges against different people", which have only made the situation worse for him. It seems very unlikely that Morrow will advise that it is safe to sign Bilainkin's letter, and Wood feels that BR should refrain from sending Bilainkin anything in writing which he could show someone else as "it is hardly possible to say anything which is not libellous or contempt of court." The Woods will try to gather more information.

Morrow (whose letter is enclosed; see record 130770) strongly advises against signing the letter, saying "Bilainkin is a man with a dangerous obsession".

Wood thinks there is some truth in the affidavits and explains that nothing would be published in the newspapers for Lynne's interests. They can do nothing to contact the child without putting Bilainkin in contempt of court. Wood highlights one example of Bilainkin making outrageous accusations of corruption. The child does not now seem in any danger. Wood suggests there is little for either of them to do that can help Bilainkin. He and Mary will try and see Bilainkin again and advise him on the best course in the practical interests of the child.

BR is dissatisfied with the way the Bulletin is treating Pauling: "I consider that your inability either to apologise, retract the printed statement that Pauling lies, or oblige Glass to do so is disgusting. I wish this letter printed in the Bulletin".

This letter is marked "unsent"; it is replaced with a more civil letter dated Nov. 29, 1962.

A TL(CAR) copy of the letter is attached.

Having heard BR is leading the signatories to demand an inquiry, Maddock agrees to sign Bilainkin's letter as well. Maddock has seen Lynne on many occasions since June 2, 1956. Maddock suggests that BR make a statement in the House.

As BR no longer lives near London, he has left the Bilainkin case with his friends, the Woods. BR will send Maddock's letter to them and says "I am anxious not to do anything public until I have an accumulation of undeniable facts."

The document is typed on the verso of the copy of Maddock's letter (see record 70721).

Bilainkin recounts his experiences abroad in Germany, Holland, and France. He has a reply from Kingsley Martin on Alan Robbins raising the suppression of 10 reports on Lynne's case with the Press Council. Bilainkin hopes the Council will remove the secrecy surrounding Lynne's case. Bilainkin writes: "I still pray daily, morning and night, for early death.... It seems the child must be turned into a psychotic, neurotic weakling...." He is writing a draft of a speech, hoping BR will read it in the House.

Bilainkin has pleaded his case to the President of the International Red Cross in Geneva. He has been advised of the possibility of kidnapping Lynne and appealing to the church or a person of high standing who would raise the matter publicly.

Bilainkin attaches a statement that he hopes BR might be able to read in the House at some time when doing so would not put Bilainkin in contempt.

Bilainkin has not been allowed to contact Lynne. He asks why BR suddenly lost enthusiasm in the case after he had sent Bilainkin to see the Woods.

Bilainkin details the history of Lynne's case and BR's involvement. He asks "what ended his efforts on my child's behalf, and, if he will not put the record right, by writing a plea in terms to be agreed ... for a public inquiry into the child's grim example of justice gone crazy."

Bilainkin encloses a letter to the editor of a publication that explains the history of his case.

A note in Edith Russell's handwriting on the envelope says: "Not to be answered—facts misunderstood by him, but there is no way of making him understand. This letter is preceded by a long correspondence over years."

Shaw left an unfinished play when he died. The public trustee, as executor, refused permission to publish this fragment. Britton, with Shaw's consent, has finished the play but now the whole work, fragment and completed play, has been banned by the trustee. This has caused a stir and the trustee has referred to the Society of Authors to determine the literary merit of the complete play. Britton considers this a case of censorship, saying: "Literature everywhere in the world should have the right to be judged by the world, and not by individuals or bodies."

The public trustee is considering proposals for the publication of the play, Why She Would Not. The Society of Authors is acting as literary censor. Britton argues the right of freedom of expression and asks BR his opinion.

Britton is happy for BR's help. He encloses a letter he sent to the Committee of Management. The Society of Authors seems evasive in the issue and Britton questions the conduct of the Society. A note indicates that BR has sent Britton copies of BR's Feb. 8 and 15 letters to M. Elizabeth Barber, and his Feb. 13 reply.

Britton expresses his feeling that "there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere, and I think their heads have been turned by their new importance as Shaw's literary agents."

He encloses his reply to the Committee of Management of the Society of Authors, dated Feb. 14, 1956.

Britton thanks BR for his help. He explains that the actions of the executor have nothing to do with the actions of the Society and that the Society is just evading discussing their own actions.

Britton is happy that BR's protest has been effective as the trustee has lifted the ban on publishing the Shaw fragment of the play. The trustee would still like a literary opinion of Britton's version. Britton asks BR for his opinion on the complete play.

BR does not think that anyone's opinion on the literary merit of the work is relevant to the point at issue as it is still a form of censorship.

The reply is typed on the verso of Britton's letter (see record 70732). BR opposes the "imprimatur" of "elderly big-wigs".

The trustee has given up his claim to censor Shaw's fragment and the Society of Authors has relinquished its right of censorship to the trustee. However, the copyright does belong to Shaw and the trustee as executor must sanction the work. It is then reasonable that the trustee then seek some advice on the quality of the work, and Britton asks BR if he would help in this regard. "One must thank God for a man like you", he says.

Britton has a copy of his original script. His idea was to publish the complete play and Shaw's fragment together. He asks BR if he would like to read the copy.

BR is in favour of having the complete play and Shaw's fragment published separately in one book. He does not think it worthwhile to send the Shaw fragment and returns Britton's typescript which he was glad to see.

The original is in RA1 750; K. Blackwell typed and inserted the copy here.

Britton expresses his profound thanks for BR's help: "I owe you my life as a writer, as it is."

E.V. Knox and others have expressed their support for Britton's resolution. J.B. Priestley believes that the resolution is sound but has come at a bad time. Britton asks BR if he would lead the resolution to give it more weight.

BR is very busy and can ill afford to champion Britton's resolution but gathers from Britton's letter that he has enough support already.

The reply is copied on the verso of Britton's letter (see record 70738).

Britton asks BR if he will be able to second the resolution at the Society of Authors' general meeting either at the meeting or via a letter.

Britton has settled his quarrel with the Society and owes BR a debt of gratitude for his help. Britton asks BR if he would permit extracts from their correspondence to be published in order to garner interest and attention to help the publication of the work.

Britton asks BR if he would second a motion for submission to the Society of Authors. The motion asserts that the suppression of literature is wrong as is withholding support to anyone facing such suppression.

Britton's resolution was considered at length and referred to the next meeting. Britton offers a shorter, more specific resolution, and asks if BR would support it. Aldous Huxley supports Britton's stand on principle "because he objected to official interference with literature."

BR asks Barber, "What moral right anybody can have to refuse publicity to Britton, nor does it seem to me that the question whether his work is good or bad is relevant." He asks for Barber's view.

There are 2 copies of this letter.

Barber asks if BR believes that the executor has no moral right to withhold permission from anyone to publish an adaptation of a work as long as both are published separately in one volume.

BR won't agree to Barber's general statement since exceptions can always be imagined. BR believes that if the trustee will allow Shaw's fragment to be published alone, then there is no reason it can't be published with Britton's amplification as long as it is clear how much work is his. The final issue regards copyright but that is a legal and financial question and not a literary one. The reply is typed on the verso of Barber's letter (see record 70745).

Barber informs BR that all decisions on Shaw's work lie with the trustee and that the Society has recommended a few eminent critics to guide the trustee's decision.

Barber informs BR that the trustee is ready to consider applications to publish Shaw's fragment. Whether Britton was persona grata to Shaw is unclear. Barber sees it as a right of an executor to exercise caution before allowing anyone to transform an author's work.

Margaret Lloyd comments on a draft letter BR sent her on the Sobell case. Lloyd and some peers are working with Mrs. Sobell. They hope to have a committee set up soon. She encloses a newsclipping from the Manchester Guardian on Rose Sobell's visit and comments on BR's letter (see record 70751).

Lloyd thanks BR for his letter and will return his draft with some comments and news of other approaches and support soon. Mrs. Sobell has left for Italy and saw BR and Edith while in England.

The document is a list of editing comments pertaining to a draft of BR's first letter to the editor on the Sobell case. BR has made notes in the margin.

Dated from its enclosure with Margaret Lloyd's letter of March 21, 1956 (see record 70749).

Bryant criticizes the U.S. Attorney-General for views on the Fifth Amendment which were reported in the New York Times.

BR asks The Manchester Guardian to publish an enclosed letter which criticizes the American judicial process in support of Sobell. He concludes, "I cannot bear to think of anyone suffering unjustly such a punishment as Sobell's for one day beyond what is unavoidable."

There are 5 copies of the letter present, one of which is signed "Bertrand Russell". This one is folded, dated March 14, 1956, and may have been the copy sent to Margaret Lloyd and returned.

No formal committee for Sobell's support has been formed and the address of Mr. J. Stanley is given, where further information on the Sobell case can be reached.

Lloyd thinks that the anniversary of the Rosenbergs' execution could be the peak time to launch a campaign.

Stanley's name is added in BR's hand.

James writes BR agreeing with his letter in The Manchester Guardian and offers his assistance to BR in support of Sobell.

Bryant, after reading BR's comments in the New York Times, criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court. He adds that "the primary factor in this rapid disintegration of American life has been, in my opinion, a mis-use of radio and tv by unscrupulous millionaires." The letter at record 70752 was enclosed with this letter.

Glickman is an American living in London and asks BR for the sources he used to write his letter in The Manchester Guardian.

Glickman wants to send the letter and sources to his congressman in hopes that justice will be done in support of Sobell.

Helen Sobell invites BR to speak at a meeting May 15, 1956 at Carnegie Hall.

Roy thanks BR for passing his unspecified suggestions to Unwin.

Roy was glad to see BR's letter in The Manchester Guardian and praises BR's efforts supporting Sobell.

BR writes a letter in response to Professor Perkins' letter in The Manchester Guardian. BR defends his position on Sobell's case. A note at the top in Edith Russell's hand: "Scrapped for letter of April 3".

BR's letter (see record 70760) will be published in The Manchester Guardian. BR is asked, if before the letter goes to print, he would add references to other letters that are to appear or to an editorial in The Washington Post.

Huberman sends BR galley proofs of Malcolm Sharp's book, Was Justice Done? The Rosenberg-Sobell Case. He asks BR for comments that might be used on the jacket cover of the book.

BR thanks Huberman for the letter and the proofs and will finish reading them in a day or two.

The letter is typed on the verso of Huberman's letter (see record 70762).

Hanson writes to Russell supporting his stance on the Sobell case. He encloses a letter written to The Manchester Guardian in which he defends Russell's position against offended Americans. The enclosure is typed on the same sheets.

Hanson mentions that BR is President of the Philosophy of Science Club (at Cambridge University).

The Committee has sent a letter to President Eisenhower appealing for clemency following BR's inspiring letter in The Manchester Guardian and a visit from Rose Sobell. BR is congratulated for his work.

BR is glad to know of the Committee's work on Sobell's behalf but questions the letter to Eisenhower appealing for clemency. He writes, "If he is released as a result of an appeal for clemency, he remains under the imputation of criminal activities and the authorities are not shown up as they ought to be."

The reply is typed on the verso of S. Russell's letter (see record 70765).

Rodker encloses a pamphlet by Harold Urey on the Sobell case. BR's letters in The Manchester Guardian are "the biggest thing that's happened on the Sobell case in the U.S.—according to the Sobell Committee there." A meeting is being arranged for June 21, 1956 to discuss activities and a campaign.

BR is congratulated for his position on the Sobell case. The clipping is the New York Times report of BR's letter, headlined "Bertrand Russell Accuses the F.B.I. of Atrocities, Doubts Rosenberg's Guilt".

Block is acquainted with BR and is good friends with Julie Medlock.

BR is questioned on his assertions about the actions of the F.B.I. Block doubts the existence of evidence to corroborate BR's claims. Block was associated with the prosecuting office.

Attached is an article on BR's stance in The New York Times. The clipping is the New York Times report of BR's C56.04 letter, headlined "Bertrand Russell Accuses the F.B.I. of Atrocities, Doubts Rosenbergs' Guilt".

After reading the story on BR in The New York Times, Cameron wanted BR to know of two books: The Judgment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg by John Wexley and The Atom Spy Hoax by William Reuben. Cameron is the publisher of these books.

BR wonders why The Manchester Guardian is printing so many hostile letters in response to his letter and no supporting ones.

BR sends a supporting letter by Derek Sington hoping it will be published.

Sobell regrets that BR will not be able to attend the Carnegie Hall meeting but asks that he send a tape-recorded message that could be played at the meeting.

Belfrage is a victim of the McCarthy witch-hunt and has spent time in jail, charged with nothing, before being deported. He was formerly a newspaper editor and intends to write a book on his experiences and wants BR to read the manuscript and meet him.

Birnbaum calls to BR's attention Professor Perkins' reply in The New York Times. It serves to boost Perkins' career and The New York Times, "whose combination of officiousness, apologetics and cravenness grows increasingly offensive". It will probably not publish BR's reply.

Lennox supports BR's efforts in the Sobell case and comments on the opprobrious actions of the U.S. military abroad.

Evans details legal precedents and laws regarding perjury, oaths and freedom of speech re the Sobell case, but in an eccentric way.

Wadsworth assures BR that there was no conscious bias in choosing letters to print and that the hostile letters happened to come in a bunch. He will try to get some letters in support of BR published and adds that The Manchester Guardian will not be running the correspondence on this topic much longer, "particularly because so many of the Americans will stray from the original facts of the controversy."

Newman expresses his respect for BR's stance on the Sobell case.

Newman notes individuals and organizations that have challenged BR, including the American Committee for Cultural Freedom. He outlines some of the activities of the Los Angeles Sobell Committee concerning business with the National A.C.L.U.

BR thanks Newman for his letter and a pamphlet (not present). He tells Newman that he has resigned from the International Congress for Cultural Freedom which is associated with the American Committee for Cultural Freedom over this issue. BR encloses a letter he has written to The Manchester Guardian (not present).

The reply is typed on the last page of Newman's letter (see record 70778).

Revised version of BR's second letter to the editor on the Sobell case.

Sington includes a letter which he proposes to send to the Manchester Guardian. He asks for BR's comments and would like to meet with BR. The letter is part of an enclosure that BR sent to the Manchester Guardian (see record 70771).

Sington was formerly a foreign correspondent with the Manchester Guardian.

S. Russell thanks BR for his opinions on the Committee's appeal to Eisenhower for clemency. He encloses a letter written to the Manchester Guardian on the Sobell case and the Committee.

Levitas is disturbed by BR's first letter in the Manchester Guardian and is afraid that communists are using it "for what it is worth to them". He encloses a reprint of a review (not present) of Wexley's book and asks for BR's opinion.

Corsini is a friend of Helen Sobell and foreign editor of a Rome newspaper, Paese Sera. He would like to interview BR on the Sobell case.

BR is asked to write an article around John Wexley's book The Judgment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for "a very hard-up socialist newspaper", Tribune.

Lloyd informs BR on news relating to the Sobell case. Rose Sobell's husband has died while she was in Paris. Lloyd offers BR a Canadian's book on the F.B.I.

BR is unable to make a tape-recorded message for the New York Sobell Committee's meeting but sends a written one (on same sheet).

A meeting to discuss how to help in the Sobell case is being planned for June 19, 1956, and BR is invited to speak.

Nicol thanks BR for the letters he wrote in the Manchester Guardian and asks if he will publish the evidence for the facts presented in those letters.

Sharp will send BR a copy of his book as soon as possible via the Sobell Committee. Sharp offers his views on the Sobell case and surrounding legal matters.

A mysterious correspondent calling himself E.G., with profound respect for BR, informs him that the Rosenbergs were guilty of espionage. E.G. claims that he was one of the agents that helped transmit information.

Daniel Marshall is being honoured for his "significant role" in the Rosenberg-Sobell case. A message is enclosed. Newman asks BR to write something additional on the message which will be collected and bound with others.

An anonymous correspondent offers views on the Sobell case and wishes BR success.

Clippings are enclosed.

Helen Sobell forwards a copy of a letter signed by many eminent Americans that was sent to President Eisenhower. It asks for Morton Sobell's release or for a new trial to be ordered.

Two copies are present.

Manning is a supporter of BR's efforts in the Sobell case and encloses data on Sobell's Mexican experiences (not present).

Rosenbaum thanks BR for his donation to the Committee but is sorry he will not be able attend the meeting on June 19, 1956.

She asks BR if he will write a message that could be read at the meeting.

BR encloses a message to be read at the Committee meeting on June 19, 1956.

The reply is typed on Rosenbaum's letter (see record 70796) and the message overleaf.

A microfilm print of the message is also in Rec. Acq. 90.

Sharp informs BR of the latest motion on the Sobell case and the signed petition sent to President Eisenhower. Sharp has asked the Rosenberg-Sobell Committee to send BR a copy of the Atom Spy Hoax and the motion papers.

For interest's sake, Beck sends BR a copy of a letter he sent to President Truman in 1952 on the Rosenberg case.

Kristol forwards BR a letter written by Nathan Glazer to the Manchester Guardian. Kristol considers Glazer's letter to be a faithful reflection of "the prevailing attitude to the Sobell case in liberal American circles."

Glazer's letter is in reply to BR's Guardian letter and is dated May 7, 1956.

Rose Sobell informs BR of her trip through Europe. BR's name carries great influence with the people she spoke with.

Daniel Marshall is a lawyer working to free Sobell. A scroll of signatures is being circulated and collected in his honour.

BR is asked for his signature.