Source A is an extract from “A tour of the Grand Junction canal in 1819” by author: john hassell. This book is one mans view on each of the villages he visits along the Grand Junction canal. Before the canal was built the village of stoke bruerne is described as a quite and tranquil, rural village. The author john hassell describes all the things he sees from cows grassing in the fields to what different boats he comes across. In parts of the extract he tells us what the views are like and how all the buildings he sees are unique in there own way, he describes a old gothic church he sees and how it is situated at the highest point of the hill.
In the whole of this extract from his book he gives us all the positive points of the village and how the canal has just made the village a better place to live in comparison to how it was before the canal was built. It is described very well how the village is making more money and is a more exiting place to be. We are told of how there are a huge variety of jobs for people and that women even had more jobs they could choose from. We can tell from are site visit to stoke bruerne that they had more money and trade because of the canal because the houses had welsh slate which means that they must have had a lot of trade going through.
In the Northampton mercury, September 3rd 1803 there is an advert saying that any man that causes a boat to be made for either cattle, sheep, lamb or hogs will be paid twenty guineas telling us trade was one of the main advantages of having the canal through the village. There are also other parts of the Northampton mercury that suggest trade was an important part of stoke bruerne because of the canal because there is another article saying that 100 live fat sheep where going to arrive.
Parcels could also be sent faster now because of the canal because they had fly boats which were the fastest boats then which delivered all different kinds of goods like parcels, corn, flour, meat, luggage, to all 33 different towns and villages from Birmingham to London. In 1819 when the book was written stoke bruerne did not have its best percentage on the table of divedends, revenue and tonnages? They did not get the most money until 1825 – 1831, which were the best years.
This shows us how successful they were doing at the time. On the map of the canal we can also see lots of new buildings along the canal and because of the hotels we no it was a place that many tourists would probably go to. Although source A tells us how successful stoke bruern had become since the canal was built we do not no if source A is a reliable source. Source a Source a is only one mans view on the village and we do not no if he he’s been there before. We also do not no if he has made stoke bruerne seem like a successful place and said such good things about it just because he wants to sell books.
Source a has no negative points either and so it cannot be entirely accurate because then stoke bruerne would have to be a perfect place. He does not tell us how the canal has affected others like millers and the duke of Grafton and the villagers. In conclusion I think that the impact on stoke bruerne was very big after the canal had been built and there were many advantages of having the canal there because of trade, work and money. But I do not think that source A is a reliable source since we do not get any cold hard facts about the canal and we do not have any negative points about the problems and it is only one mans personal view of the village and others could have different opinions and we only are told a little about trade and business.
Question 3:to what extent is source B view on the impact of the railway on stoke bruerne supported by other sources? Before the railway was built stoke bruerne was a popular, rich successful village. The village had been changed since the canal had been built and was centre of all trade. When the railway was built the village of stoke bruerne was about to undergo another big change.
The Grand Junction canal went from Birmingham to London and was used to transport goods of trade and other packages and was yet the fastest means of transport over long distances. When the railway was finished it was competition for the canal and was a more efficient way to transport goods. The railway was fast and could travel the same distance as the canal.
The railway opened in 1838 and lead to the end for the canal. Stoke bruene was greatly affected by this change since the train did not go through the little village and instead went a different route through another town called roade. The canal was used less fro transport of goods and stoke bruerne was no longer successful and no longer prospered like it used to. Source B also explains how the village was now empty and was not as busy as is was before the railway came along.
Source B written by author john Hollingshead is from an extract of his book “on the canal”. The book was written 20 years after the building of the railway and tells us how business had been taken away from the canal because of the railway. The railway caused lots of other negative effects on the village, which are not described in the source. In the minuet book 16th January 1835 we are told that there were plans to build part of the railway over part of the canal that was refused.
This shows us that the railway was more popular than the canal and that the canal was not as important any more as it once had been. Although the canal at stoke bruerne was not doing very well in other extracts from the minute book we are told that the canal committee still tried to make the canal popular once more and repaired parts of it. There were also proposals to add extra locks to the canal around the 7th august 1851.on maps of stoke bruerne we can see that the railway also goes a shorter route than the way used by the Grand Junction canal.
Like question 2 this source is an extract from a book. And we do not no if it is reliable or not . It tells us how the railway was taking business away . The source agrees with other sources though like the British economic and social history, 1700 to 1870 by Philip sauvain, which says the same as source B about business being taken away. It is also right about how the canal could not keep up with the speed of the canal boats and how convenient it was by railway. From are sight visit I found out that the canal boats were very slow some only going 4miles per hour maximum. The percentage of the dividend table has also dramatically dropped from how it once was and is shown now to be only 3 percent at its lowest and at a average of 4 between 1879 – 1928.
In conclusion source B is not a totally reliable source although it does tell us some facts that are also shown in other sources that agree with what source B is saying. But from source B we do no that stoke bruerne did greatly change and is a lot different from how it was before. We also learn that the canal was no competition for the railway, which was the most successful way of transport like the canal had once been, and the canal was no longer making money.