The next building is Bruerne Lock Restaurant. It is used as a restaurant for tourists that pass by. The restaurant looks like an ordinary house but has a sign hung outside saying it is the restaurant. 150 years ago it was the house and shop for the boat people; owned by Thomas Amos; rope and twine manufacturer. In addition in the mid 1900’s it was Sister Mary Ward’s surgery and she lived there too. Sister Mary Ward was an important person and still is prime position of the community, her husband Charley Ward ran a saving scheme shop. Sister Mary ward never professionalized as a nurse but returned to Stoke Bruerne to look after her sick father.
The last building is the Navigation Inn. The navigation inn is made from brick and has a tiled roof. The pub also has a playing area for the children. On the side of the pub is a sign telling us this was the navigation inn. The Navigation Inn is and was 150 years ago a pub. At first it was shut down to become a farmer’s house. It then became abandoned. People in the village thought it was haunted. It then became a pub restaurant again; a brewery took it over and renovated it.
In my personal view I think that only some of the building are or maybe valuable and good as sources for us as historians. They do not tell us much about the Canal Age However the building are only useful to us by looking at how old they are, who uses the buildings now and who used them 150 years ago. The museum is the only good building that has useful information. The information is from 150 years ago and today.
“The lives of those who worked and lived on the canals were hard and uninspiring. Their chance to improve their lives was almost impossible.”
There were 3 main types of people that lived and worked on the canal or in the village of Stoke Bruerne. The first group of people were the Navvies. The navvies were the people who dug the canals and built them. The second group of people were the Boat people, these people lived and worked on their boats, they transported goods to and from different places. The last group of people were the villagers; these people were the ones who worked and lived in the surrounding area, such as people like the leggers or the mill workers.
A Navvy’s life could have been hard and uninspiring because a navvy’s job was very dangerous. Tunnels and bridges sometimes collapsed leading to deaths of the hard-working people. It took the navvies twelve years to build the canal. When it was built the navvies had a lot of work to do. It wasn’t like it was today; they didn’t have machines to do the work for them. The navvies had to dig the canal by hand; they had pick axes and spades to help them. The navvies had the hardest jobs; they had to move around for miles to do their job, with the risk of getting dangerously hurt. Tunnelling was highly dangerous many navvies were killed by rock or earth falls or gun powder explosions that had gone wrong. An uninspiring side to a navvy’s life would be that if they left there job it would be hard to get another one as most of them could not read or write. However a navvy’s life could have an upside, as they got to go to new paces and see different sceneries and meet new people. The pay/ wages in different areas were also higher.
The Boat peoples lives could have been hard and uninspiring as their job meant that they had to work long hour’s aswell as starting very early. This meant that they would rarely have time to spend with family and friends; this could be lonely for the boat people. The Industrial revolution meant that they had to work twice as hard and longer for their boats and their lives to be run how they wanted it to be. The industrial revolution was the biggest problem to the boat people and it was continuing to widen across the country. Another reason life could have been uninspiring as there was no time for schooling, this meant that people would grow up not being able to read or write. A headmaster at Stoke Bruerne primary school kept a log book of admittance to boat children “May 22 1922. Admitted a boat girl today. She can neither read nor write.” the lives of boat people were dangerous. A source from the Parish register book shows us how dangerous it was. it reads “1809 October 21st Susanna and Mary Blunt wife and daughter of John Blunt, both drowned in the canal between the hours of three and four o’clock in the early morning. Looking at the source from the school log book and the source from the parish register, you can see that the children who lived on the boats had to work long, hard, tiring and dangerous lives aswell as the adults. Most boat people became forced to live on their boats after having problems on land; this meant they had to live in a cramped condition. Their shopping was done on the move, washing both clothes and a person was done at the canal bank. Boat children did not have normal lives, young children and even babies had to play on the roof attachments. This all could have been uninspiring to these people. Life however living on a boat could have been fun. Life on the canal must have been far more fun than in a Victorian school room. The canal was a romantic place so many families lived happy and worked hard to help each other out. Life on the canal was one big adventure. The transport industry was a well paid job and provided a secure future for the boat people.
In my opinion I don’t think the life of the villagers was hard or uninspiring as they had a chance of being educated and getting a good well paid job in the future. however if we was talking about a particular occupation such as being a legger this could have been hard and tiring job, on the other hand the leggers were the best paid workers of the people. They had the most prised job.
Overall I think that the life of those who worked and lived in the canal was both hard and uninspiring and inspiring, for example if you were a legger you got to have a little bit of fun by having races against other leggers. There were ways in which their lives could have been made more interesting but it was a working environment. They had occasional times when they had time to spare, when boats were getting fixed, to visit people enjoy times being tighter. The boat people cared for their boast ands their jobs and obviously didn’t want to give up how their lives were going.
Introduction
Stoke bruerne is and ancient settlement at the foot of the limestone and ironstone ridge which passes through south Northamptonshire in a south-west to north-east direction, forming a natural barrier to communication.
The canal was built through the village of Stoke Bruerne, in Northamptonshire, because the Grand Junction Canal (also known as the Grand Union Canal) was positioned straight through the village. The canal system affected the people and landscape in many ways, but also made a difference.
Also at Stoke Bruerne there was a hill. The hill caused problems for the people to get goods past. The canal helped the working people by allowing them to load and unload their goods, as they couldn’t get past the hill.
The canal became a place for workers; it brought many people to Stoke Bruerne looking for jobs on the boats. The canal that runs through Stoke Bruerne was important after it was built; it brought industry and the work for unemployed.
One of the changes it brought to the people and the area were the new job opportunities for the industry beginning. Another change was brought to the boatpeople live was hard for them but the enjoyed living on the boats they once only worked on (after families being forced to live on their canal boats) they had to live and enjoy their lives differently to others.
The canal at Stoke Bruerne fell into decline in the years of 1850 to 1860. It fell into decline because of the Industrial Revolution and railways. The railways were becoming more preferred to canals, as they were cheaper quicker and more flexible, for transporting goods. Canals were still used but less than before. The industry was growing and canals were too slow for these transportations needed.
During this time Stoke Bruerne opened as a pleasure-boating canal, which was growing rapidly.
This decline was typical to the country as a whole because the country always expect the best of everything, including canals, when the canal at Stoke Bruerne fell into decline more people got used to the idea of railways, which made them think less of canals. Industry was becoming more available in location to railways.
Stoke bruerne used to be an important and busy centre of trade. Trade used to pass through stoke bruerne from the midlands to London because it has a much faster route, some of the goods would have been unloaded to be sold in the surrounding area. The middle of the 20th century the canal almost became completely unused. It was then decided that the area could be an important tourist attraction for people wanting to find out about the past or even just a day out.
“Visiting a local historical site such as Stoke Bruerne can help you to get a better understanding of the past”
I visited Stoke Bruerne to gain information about the past of Stoke Bruerne. Stoke Bruerne as a whole is a museum. Each building has a history/past. When I visited Stoke Bruerne I came across both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources were the buildings. They are primary sources because they were still standing 150 years on. The secondary sources I came across were the Information, pictures etc in the museum.
I agree with the statement given, as the primary sources can help us understand the past of stoke bruerne for example Blisworth tunnel was the same as it was 150 years ago. Also the canal is used for the same function. The railway is there even though it is not used, you can imagine what and how it was used for. There used to be a bridge, which divided the vicar’s land into two halves, where the bridge was the canal has been narrowed. The bridge is no longer there. The museum had artefacts, which were all authentic like the clothes the models had on and the tools that were used. Also in the museum there was a construction of a canal boat. This helped me to imagine and understand what the boat people had to live in and what the conditions were like for bigger families. All these sources helped me gain an idea of what life was like 150 years ago living in this area was like.
Although I agree with the statement there are some aspects I disagree with, because a lot of things at Stoke Bruerne have changed. Stoke Bruerne is no longer there for industrial purpose it is there for tourists, 150 years ago you wouldn’t have expected to see a car park near a canal. Everything has changed due to the fact of tourism, for instance the wacky warehouse at the Navigation was not there for children 150 years ago, boat children had to play on the roofs of there boats. Another feature that wouldn’t have been there 150 years ago was the ramps for disabled visitors. The shop was another change for tourists; 150 years ago the only shop there was the Boat peoples house and shop. Now the shop sells all different items such as toys, key rings, food, postcards etc, this is all for the tourists that wish to buy souvenirs. Buildings have changed for tourists for example the restaurant and bar; this used to be the stables for the horses. it would have been good to see where people worked and what they did for work, for example the Corn Mill. In addition it would have been good to see the surgery where Sister Mary Ward treated her patients, as she was such an important part of the history of stoke bruerne. In my view it seems as thought there are some things that are no longer left at stoke bruerne to show that stoke bruerne was an industrial area of the canal life. It is now in a different line of industry- tourism, because tourism has changed stoke bruerne, there is not 100% understanding of what and how life was like 100 years ago.
In my opinion all the sources are good and bad in different ways. If I was to visit Stoke Bruerne for the first time I would have liked to see reconstructions of the building which have changed, in the museum, as they were 150 years ago, for instance the corn mill could have been built as a reconstruction inside. The surgery that Sister Mary Ward could have been remodelled in the museum, even if it was a small part of each of these buildings. The buildings that have not changed are a good source as they are the same as they would have been 150 years ago. The canal itself is a good source, it has stayed the same through the years, and the only change made to the canal was the turning point for the tourists’ day trip boats. The Blisworth tunnel although it has tried to collapse it has remained the same. All the sources are good evidence of the past. They are only bad sources of evidence when they have been changed, for example the lock or the restaurant and bar.
Overall I think Stoke Bruerne Museum was the only place that gave all the information about the past; this was because it had information about everything. Although stoke bruerne as a whole was one big museum, it is not totally reliable because some areas have changed. In some aspects stoke bruerne is a good source of evidence to find out about the past, but due to tourism changes it cannot be that reliable to find out some information.
