Even though Source A does mention some of the impacts of the canal, it has missed some out. In the Northampton Mercury it has an advertisement for an auction for the unused materials from building the canal. This would be good for Stoke Bruerne because they could make their houses and business better. This would be making their standard of living even better. There is also a competition for building the best boat to carry cattle. This competition means they are thinking of widening the market and goods bought in. This would mean that the farmers would have a better business. This agrees with source A because in source A it says the “navigation attendants and cattle. This means that they managed to design a boat that can hold cattle. It says about flyboats. Flyboats were boats that travelled faster than regular boats. They could travel fresh butter, cheese, corn and flour. This meant that they could transport these products without them going off.
On our site visit we saw how the canal cut the village in half. This does not agree with Source A. Source A omits the canal cutting the village in half. Also we saw the new buildings that were built. We saw the improved houses and buildings. This agrees with Source A to some extent. It does say about the improved buildings but not the new buildings.
In the Table of Dividends, Revenue and Tonnages you can see that the canal was visited many times and that much money was made. You can see this because the percent the investors get in dividends go up from 1% in 1805 to 12% in 1835. The investors earned a lot of money. This was not mentioned in Source A.
Though some of the important impacts were mentioned in Source A. Not all of them were. It mentioned the sights but not the facts behind them. Most of the sources agree with Source A. The Northampton Mercury agrees the most with Source A but Source A omits the selling of the materials not used by the workforce, in building the canal. Source A fails to mention the better transport.
It omits information about the flyboats and how much quicker they make transport of goods. Source A agrees a lot with the Northampton Mercury. It has been partly supported by all of the sources but never fully supported because Source A omits some of the facts.
Source A may not be reliable because about halfway through the passage he starts remembering memories of Wales. This might have clouded his judgement. We don’t know for sure if he is referring to Wales or Stoke Bruerne.We will never know this for sure because we can’t look inside his mind and see what he was thinking. Also he might have put a positive spin on it because it was a tour guide. He wants to sell his tour guide, so he wouldn’t have put any negatives in the tour guide.
That might not have been the only source that was not reliable. The Northampton Mercury may not have been reliable because it was the Duke of Grafton who owned the land that the canal was built on, he would not have wanted the canals reputation tarnished because he wouldn’t want his business to suffer.
There may be enough reliable sources to determine the impact of the canal on Stoke Bruerne. But we can never be so sure about the reliability of the sources. The Duke of Grafton may heavily influence the Northampton Mercury. The Tables of Dividends, Revenue and Tonnages should be reliable because it is an official document. I think that there are enough reliable sources to determine the impact of the canal on Stoke Bruerne. The impact of the canal on Stoke Bruerne was that it became a bustling busy village. It brought in new materials. It raised the villager’s standards of living. It had a good effect on the village. The Impact of the canal was positive on the village
