Hymers Debating Society, 1907-08

As the Fair has arrived in Hull once again a discovery of three debating books led to a topical find amongst the pages. Discussions recorded by the Hymers Debating Society during the 1907-08 session concerned a subject close to the hearts of many Hull residents: Hull Fair.

Debate held on 15 October 1907, the motion before the house, proposed by S. Ballan, stated:

"This House considers that the Hull Fair is a public nuisance and ought to be abolished."

In opening the debate, Ballan acknowledged that the Fair brought enjoyment to thousands of visitors each year, but argued that this benefit was outweighed by a number of significant drawbacks. He highlighted the considerable expense associated with policing the event and pointed to the disruption experienced by residents living in the surrounding area. He also raised concerns about public safety, referring to incidents in which animals had reportedly escaped from their cages and posed a risk to fairgoers and local people alike.

The principal opposition was presented by H.H. Holdsworth, who described Hull Fair as a "great stimulus" to local commerce. He argued that the event generated substantial economic benefits for the city, boosting takings for shopkeepers, tram services and the railways. Quoting figures used during the debate, Holdsworth claimed that some shopkeepers earned as much during Hull Fair week as they would normally expect to take over a two-month period. Abolishing the Fair, he suggested, would therefore have serious consequences for local businesses.

Support for the motion came from R.M. Williams, who focused on the impact of the Fair on education, especially with the Schools close proximity to the Fair. He argued that lessons in local School were significantly disrupted throughout Fair week. According to Williams, the noise of the animals could be heard during the mornings, while music and other attractions created disturbances during the afternoons, making it difficult for pupils to concentrate on their studies.

Speaking in support of the opposition, A. Farrell maintained that the Fair provided innocent enjoyment for people of all ages. He dismissed concerns about its existence and argued that there was "no reason why old and young people should not enjoy themselves."

The debate also featured a moment of humour. A previous reference to the dangers of a particular Helter-Skelter ride was swiftly challenged by A. Gresham, who reassured the house that "it must be safe, Mr and Mrs Browne went down six times!" The comment evidently brought some levity to proceedings.

Discussion also turned to the history and longevity of Hull Fair. Speakers referred to its antiquity, citing records dating back to 1837 as evidence of its long-standing place in the city's life. In reality, Hull Fair's origins stretch much further back, with its history extending for centuries before the nineteenth century.

When the votes were counted, the motion was comfortably defeated. The Society voted 16 to 5 against abolition, demonstrating that, despite concerns about noise, disruption and safety, the majority considered Hull Fair an important and valued part of civic life.

This debating book was found along with two others from the same period. Our debating society still exists led by Year 13 students and is amongst one of the most popular societies at Hymers. The Society have borrowed the books from the Archives and they debated this topic on 7th October.

Split into two groups the students the motions for the abolishment included the overcrowding of the fair due to its popularity and the risks associated with this. Both groups cited the cost of the fair and value for money as well as the increase in litter, a new concern to that of those raised in 1907. The history and nostalgia of the Fair made for interesting talking points including how this was a highlight to look forward to as seasons change. Whilst there where many points raised about safety those against the motion stated that the occurrences of actual incidents was in fact very small. Both debates voted for the motion, a very different outcome than back in 1907.