Source 5 is the shortest but of the most significant and factual. It is from the St. Mary’s Parish Register. The source says that on April 15th the remains of two women servants of Henry Maister were buried. This information is not fiction and is very reliable. In those days bodies were buried quite quickly as they would start to smell and science was not as advanced as it is today, therefore the fire cannot have been very long before the date given. Although the source is very useful is does not give any other details as to who started the fire or when exactly it was started.
Source 6 is the longest of the 7 sources but is not the most useful or reliable. It was published in the Beverley Guardian, 21st April 1877. The article is headed ‘from a private diary’ and says the writer might have been a Beverley man in about 1870. The source is secondary as the date of the diary is written after the fire. The source suggests the fire was started at 11pm on Tuesday the 12th April and says the deaths were two maids, wife of Henry Maister and his child. A lot of things question this source such as; one of the maid’s hearts was found, the writer was religious, diary written many years after the fire and also if the man lived in Beverley therefore how would he have got to the fire so quick. As well as the writer not telling the truth the paper may have exaggerated to publish this and attract readers. Overall the source is very unreliable and does not include anything as to who/what started the fire.
Finally source 7 is form Henry Maisters brother in law, John Mottram, from his last marriage, 17th April 1743. The source is a primary source and does not mention the date of the fire or who started it. The source has great sympathy for Mr Maister and is very upset of his ‘deplorable misfortune’. Mr Mottram cannot be with Mr Maister as the whole of his family are suffering from an ill epidemic; therefore he had to send it in the post which in those days was not as quick as it is now and was probably sent a few days before the date given and Mr Mottram may have written it a day or two after the fire for Mr Maister to get over it and also we do not know where he lived. This source is probably not exaggerated but whether it is true or not is questionable.
After reading each source and trying to establish when the fire was and who started can only be predicted. As to who started the fire only one source has information and suggests a ‘scotch joiner’ but is very unreliable and gives no motive or reason either. The date of the fire is mentioned in a couple of sources and backed up slightly by others. The same date is mentioned in two sources which is the 12th April and then another source which is factual from a death register says the bodies were buried on the 15th April therefore maybe the date of the 12th is quite plausible. Finally apart from source 5, St. Mary’s Parish Register, cannot be taken as facts as we do not know of any interpretations and can only assume they are what they say. For example the writer in source 6 says, ‘among the ruins the heart of one of the maids was found’, it is very unlikely and probably impossible that if anything a heart would be found from a fire.
Victoria Harmer
Question 2B
Source 6 gives more details about the fire than in any other source but has both its strengths and weaknesses. The source is a secondary source form the Beverley Guardian, 21st April 1877 and is headed, ‘from a private diary’ and it might have been written from the diary of a Beverley man in about 1780. The audience of this source was probably educating middle-class people of Beverley.
The first weakness’ I can see from looking at this source is where it has come from; firstly it has been published in a newspaper which exaggerate and change articles to attract and sell to readers, also the paper says it might have been from a Beverley man therefore it could have been written by anyone for example a young child and also the diary is dated 1780 so it was written a lot o years after the fire. A disadvantage of the diary been written along time after the fire is the writers memory may be poor and could be just making some of it up. In the source a lot of things are their to suggest reason for weaknesses such as; how can a heart be left after a fire, some plate left over and also the writer is religious. There are also weaknesses because of the article been a diary. Diary’s don’t always contain the truth as they are personal to the individual and don’t think anyone is going to see it, also people sometimes fantasise in diary’s, also the writer is from Beverley which in those days was not local so how could he have got there so quick on the night of the fire and finally the writer may have made the diary up in a plot to be recognised or to make money.
The strengths of the source are a good argument to the weaknesses but probably do not answer them only suggest reason for them. Firstly the facts of the fire which the source is suggesting; the date mentioned for the date of the fire has been suggested in another source and backed up in others for example source 2 also says the fire was started on Tuesday the 12th and also the deaths of the fire have been given. The advantage of the date of the diary been after the fire is the writer may have researched before writing it and got more factual information. The strengths of the article been a diary are; the writer would not lie in his own diary as only he would read it anyway, the writer would be saying exactly what he knew about the fire and also it is first hand and maybe the writer does not want to forget the event.
Finally the strengths and weaknesses can be both looked at and interpreted or have reason but we still do not know whether all the information is completely factual or fiction. If the source was to be looked at in more detail the test the accuracy of the source other evidence would have to be looked at and compared against it. Although from the other 6 sources a lot of the facts can be backed up but the small details are very unreliable and believable.
Victoria Harmer
From a study of the site and other documentary sources show how and why High street changed between 1791 and today.
The first name for what is now Hull was known as Wyko, until changed as it was bought by King Edward 1 in 1293 and renamed Kingston upon Hull. Hull Street was the first name for High Street and became a very important part of Hull’s trade. The growth of trade in the 18th century meant that High street attracted many rich merchants and became a busy and thriving part of Hull.
The location of High Street followed the line of the River Hull; this was the main reason for its growth. Merchants wanted to live in High street and build warehouses there because incoming goods could easily be offloaded and put away. Staithes were between buildings and some were private and others were public, they would only be wide enough for a horse and carriage and merchants would take their goods down staithes. As Hull began to import and export more and more goods High street continued to become a very well established street.
On the map, after visiting High street, I have coloured in all of the buildings in accordance as to what they are used for today. I then made a graph of my results and this is what I found; there are more offices than anything else and also a large proportion of houses dwelling. There are slightly more museums than public houses and vacant houses. Then finally there are four car parks and only one house currently vacant.
Today most of the houses and warehouses down High Street have either been converted to flats or offices or simply knocked down because there is no more use for them. The River Hull only has about 5 original warehouses remaining around it and are mainly derelict apart from some which are used for offices and one is even a nightclub. Wilberforce House, 25-26 High Street, belonged to a leading merchant family and was built in the 1690’s and was named after a famous person who lived there. The house was Georgian but through time has lost some of its architectural features. In 1865 it became a counting house and then in 1903 it was bought by the city council and was made into a public museum. The Corn Exchange, 36 High Street, was re-built in the 19th century replacing a weigh house which was no longer needed. Carvings on the door of farming implements suggest what the house was used for. The Corn Exchange is Victorian and is of beautiful architecture; the house does not fit in with the rest of High Street and stands out. The building was later converted into the transport museum. Crowle House, 41 High Street, was built in 1664 and is in a late Georgian style. On the front of the building the initials represent George Crowle, a successful merchant and his wife. Companies have tried hard not to modernise this house and has also been restored to reveal original features. Now the house belongs to a shipbrokers company. Dunswell Forge, 153 High Street, was built in the 15th century around 1440. Was mainly used for metalwork and you can tell this is an old building because of the timber frame and small bricks. It is currently empty. Maister House, 160 High Street, was destroyed by a fire in 1743 then re-built far superior in a Georgian style. The house was owned by the Maister family who moved to Hull because of the trade and this was the key to their fame and fortune. The house has a large central door and windows down the side. The house is now occupied by offices for a kitchen company. Sailmaker’s Arms, 158-159 High Street, was a shop up until 1987 probably due to lack of business as it sold ship accessories and nowadays technology is much further. Sailmaker’s Arms is now a very successful pub.
There are different reasons as to why High Street changed between 1791 and today. Firstly the industrial revolution meant that more goods were been produced and exports and imports increased therefore the merchants became richer which meant that jobs were created in factories so people moved to Hull, so the walls were knocked down around the city as Hull was expanding. Then the sanitary conditions of High Street taken from a primary source showed that Hull expanding made an impact on the state of Hull, “Report of the sanitary Committee of the Hull Medical Society on the sanitary state of the town, 1847,” explains how much High Street was in bad conditions it says in some cases one hundred people were living in five small houses. The docks were starting to be built around Hull and merchants began to move away from High Street and businesses changed hands for example from an 1854 census of High Street it shows that Maister house changed hands a number of times including solicitors and stock brokers. Also the trading with the Atlantic increased which meant that other cities such as Bristol and Liverpool developed which meant Hull was no longer as important. As well as development of docks also new transport systems in Liverpool and Bristol meant that goods from overseas was now been brought to their railways which meant Hull’s roll declines as a part in trade. Finally although war was not a reason for the decline in High street it shows why it was no longer an important place for example bombs left spaces and they were not rebuilt like Pease warehouse and also High street land was less valuable.
I think the main reason for the decline in High street was the development of places like Bristol and Liverpool, which had different methods of transporting goods which gave the countries overseas a better choice of delivering goods. I think the prospects of High street will be expensive flats were young rich city people want to live. Also new projects such as ‘the deep’ have been placed near here so maybe in the future prospects for Hull will be planned on High street.
A table to show what the houses down High street are used for today;
A pie chart to show what the houses down High street are used for today;