N.C.C.L. challenge to police misuse of the Seditious Meetings Act 1817. Bridge workers procession on 03/02/1939 was intended to end at County Hall to question the London County Council (L.C.C.) but was instead dispersed by police. Kidd sees reports on the situation and contacts the workers. Sir Samuel Hoare is Home Secretary at the time and is questioned on the Act in Parliament.

a) letter from Kidd to Robert Pollard. (May 1939)

b) letter from spokesperson of the Waterloo Bridge workers, Mr G. Martin detailing the events of the two processions and giving thanks for information. Includes hand-drawn map of the route taken on the first procession. (Feb 1939)

c) Handwritten letter from MP Strauss's secretary, House of Commons to Kidd

d) Letter from Kidd to MP Strauss (22/02/1939) thanking for question copy proposed to Hoare and Hoare's response (Oral - no. 68). Says the two accounts from Hoare and the workers do not add up and is seeking clarification. Seeks more information of the details of the Seditious Meetings Act, the Sessional Orders, to greater understand if the police acted unwarrantedly.

e) Letter from Kidd to G. Martin. Sends copy of Hoare's response to the question posed to him. Requests further details of the procession, including a specific route. (22/02/1939)

f) Forwarded copy of Oral - no. 68 sent to Mr Kidd from MP Strauss's office. (17/02/1939). Mr George Strauss asks the Home Secretary in Parliament why the police dispersed the procession of workers and if the Secretary will take any steps to ensure citizens' freedoms are not breached again. The Secretary replies that MP is misinformed, stating no incident occurred and an alternative route via York Road was suggested. The procession dispersed of its own accord, not the police.

g) Norman E Wiggins - counsel to NCCL - , handwritten letters detailing his thoughts on the Halsbury's Laws of England entry about the Seditious Meetings Act. Transcribed into text via typewriter. States two reasons why it is misleading: 1) the road in which the demonstration was at was not in the limits of Westminster and thus would be legal. 2) The meeting or procession must be in order to petition or lobby the King or Parliament, which the procession in question was not for. (17/02/1939)

h) Letter to S. S. Silverman MP from Kidd. Asks for his opinion on the situation and the limits of the Seditious Meetings Act. Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Norman Wiggins. (16/02/1939)

i) Letter to Norman Wiggins in which Kidd too asks for his opinion. Includes an excerpt from their solicitor who advises against defending the workers' procession as lawful . Kidd is challenging this or seeking clarification. Encloses a copy of Section 23 of the Seditious Meeting Act 1817, which Kidd has underlined.

j) Letter from Solicitor Robert Pollard who from referencing Halsbury's Laws of England, finds that the law is partially unclear and the procession may be viewed as unlawful and so he would not advise Kidd to advise Mr Martin that their procession was lawful. He does state he should seek further advise from a barrister of Criminal Law before proceeding further. (14/02/1939)

k) Letters between Kidd and Martin, beginning their correspondence. Kidd states he saw the press reports regarding the workers procession and wants more information, as he believes police interference was unwarranted. Handwritten letter signed by Mr Martin and Mr Thomson (Chairman) detailing their version of events and asking for any advice or information that Mr Kidd may offer. Letter from Kidd replying to this explaining how he does not think the procession should have been dispersed or rerouted and that he seeks to propose a question in the House of Commons regarding this.

l) Press release of the Waterloo Bridge Strike from the committee for the workers who went on strike on 02/02/1939 and led procession on 03/02/1939. (published 07/02/1939)