One of the items on the agenda for the monthly meeting of the Baildon District Council was reminiscent of early times and, in these days of a return to simple and more primitive conditions, it gave one somewhat of a shock.The item came under the recommendations of the Building and Highways Committee and read: “That the Town Stocks be repaired.’What visions that conjured up! It is about fifty years ago, so it is said, since the stocks were in use. The surveyor, Mr J Myers, recollects having met a man who had experienced their confining powers.Silent protestThen the stocks were missing. How came they to disappear? Had some recalcitrant who had ‘enjoyed’ their ‘hospitality’ removed them as a silent protest against the publicity of such punishment?Be that as it may, the stocks were eventually come across in the foundations of the reservoir, their resting place having been led up to from an entry in somebody’s diary.
They were brought back to Town Gate and re-installed in their place of honour.Then a controversy arose as to whether these were the identical stocks that had disappeared. Fancy, no one to recognise the old-timers on their return.Sceptics declared that the old stocks had openings for two pair of legs whereas the stocks recovered had openings for one pair only.So the matter stands. Are these the stocks Baildon lost or do we still seek for the others? And have not Baildon had their road engine ‘in pawn’ or something akin to that? There is a story told of the engine having been sent away for repairs and that as the Council owed an account to the firm already, the engine was held as security.It is told that that engine was ‘Victoria,’ the present pride of Baildon. But that was many years ago. For Baildon is a prosperous place nowadays and looks the whole world in the face with no need to pawn the possessions.
The mystery of Baildon stocks - how many pairs of legs?
The burning issue in the world of politics was the creation of new parliamentary boundaries with an inquiry held to discuss initial proposals. It didn’t take long before the fierce rivalry between Shipley and Bradford resurfaced.At a conference hurriedly initiated by the Bradford Corporation Parliamentary Committee last month, Sir James Hill suggested that Shipley should become associated with Bradford for Parliamentary purposes.Whether such an arrangement could be made without the absorption of Shipley for all purposes he was doubtful but in any case, the matter was a question of voluntary arrangement and he asked Shipley above all to bear in mind that there
would be no question of coercion or compulsion in any way.The report of these observations was officially supplied to the Press by the Corporation and as the report has not been repudiated, we take it that its accuracy is not in doubt.MisunderstandingIt is not surprising, therefore, that when the Bradford Town Clerk at the inquiry on Tuesday advocated the inclusion of Shipley in the Parliamentary Borough of Bradford, Mr Isaac Lindow, clerk to Shipley District Council, charged the Corporation with a breach of faith.The Yorkshire Observer says that ‘it was fairly well understood that the charge was due partly to a misunderstanding’ whilst the Telegraph declares, ‘We cannot
understand how such an interpretation can be put upon the position and the conduct of the City’s Parliamentary Committee.’Before the writers of the notes from which we quote these words begin to deal with this matter again they would be well advised to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the official report to which we have referred.They will then perhaps be able to explain how Sir James Hill can leave Shipley free to decide whether or not she shall join Bradford for Parliamentary purposes and at the same time ask the Boundary Commissioners to compel her to go in.The Shipley Times & Express editorial also criticised other proposals:So far as the Shipley and Otley Divisions are concerned, the general impression created by the proceedings at the Parliamentary Boundary Enquiry was that the objections to the proposals made by the Boundary Commissioners were very weak.SelfishThe Otley objectors came on first. Their scheme was framed from a purely selfish standpoint. Those who had prepared it had paid no regards to areas outside their boundary.The alternative scheme put forward by Otley for creating a Shipley and Pudsey Division was obviously a makeshift.Having started a scheme to make a new division co-terminous with the area of the Wharfedale Union, the Otley people were bound to say something about Pudsey and Shipley.They therefore submitted as haphazard a proposal which would leave a population of nearly 50,000 at the Shipley and Bingley end of the Division and a little over 20,000 at the other end with no connection whatever with the Thackley tunnel as the centre.UnbiasedHow anybody could expect a scheme of that kind to be seriously entertained passes comprehension.Any unbiased person who attended the inquiry must admit that the Shipley and Otley schemes, as provisionally approved by the Commissioners, are excellent ones and we shall be surprised if they are not adopted in their entirety.
Shipley accuse Bradford of breach of faith
In the last issue of the Exprss appeared the report of an accident at Moorhead Lane Engineering Works whereby Mrs Watts was said to have lost her thumb.Mr Pepper has written us that this is an ‘entirely false report’ and ‘an entire fabrication’We have investigated the matter and find that our reporters was in error in saying that Mrs Watts’ thumb had been lost.An accident did take place as stated and Mrs Watts’ thumb was injured but not to the extent that she will lose it.We published the report as given to us and in all good faith and regret there should have been any inaccuracy in the same, also that the publication should have caused annoyance to Mr Pepper.
Thumb story correction
‘I was only drinking sodawater’ defence makes no impression on judge
At Bradford City Police Court on Monday, Christmas Staff, the landlord of the Wellington Hotel, Harrogate Road, Eccleshill, was charged with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours.Ernest Askey, 4 Vernon Place, Harrogate Road, Eccleshill, was summoned for aiding and abetting Christmas Staff to commit the offence and also for consuming the liquor during prohibited hours.Amber-colouredMr W H Leatham, prosecuting for the police, said that on Monday, July 2nd, about 10.30 a.m. two police officers entered the Wellington Hotel and on the bar counter, near where the defendant Askey was standing, was a wine glass half full of an amber-coloured liquid.On seeing the policemen Askey seized the glass and put it into a wash basin but one of the police officers, Inspector G S Walker, rushed round an seized the glass and found tht it still contained some portion of the liquid.This, on being analysed by the City Analyst was found to be partly composed of whisky. Askey acknowledged that the glass was his but said it only contained soda water.LaughterMr F H Richardson, the City Analyst, said he had made an analysis of the liquid and it contained 10 per cent of alcohol. It represented a mixture of two measures of ordinary whisky in three measures of water.It was not soda water; if it were there would be a big demand for that particular brand (laughter).For the defence it was stated that Askey, who rented a stable from Staff, had called in the Wellington Hotel to pay his rent and he had a drink of soda water.The landlord asked him to hand over some glasses which were standing on the counter and which had been left overnight and was in the act of doing so when the police entered the public house. No whisky had been supplied that morning.In the witness box Staff said he had been a licence holder for nearly 20 years and had never had a complaint laid against him. He had only supplied Askey with a soda water.The Stipendiary Magistrate said it was a perfectly clear case and imposed a fine of £5 on Staff for supplying and £2 on Askey for consuming, with analyst’s costs one guinea against Staff.