Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and thank you for joining me for today's history lesson.

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources today, and my top priority is to make sure that by the end of our lesson, you are able to successfully meet our learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the Industrial Revolution.

Where we're asking ourselves, did industrialization revolutionise people's lives in 19th century Britain? As part of today's lesson, we are gonna be working to explain why there were increasing demands for reform after 1815, and how government fear about this led to the Peterloo Massacre.

There are five key words which are going to help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are tariff, universal suffrage, radical, reactionary, and yeomanry.

A tariff is taxed to be paid on goods purchased from abroad.

Universal suffrage describes a system where all adults can vote.

A person who supports the idea that there should be big, social and political changes is known as a radical.

A person who opposes political or social progress and reform is known as a reactionary.

And finally, yeomanry are local volunteer soldiers.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts and we'll begin by focusing on some of the problems for industrial workers in early 19th century Britain.

In the years after 1815, industrial workers in Britain faced a range of problems. These problems fell into three categories, economic issues, political problems, and social issues.

We are gonna think about each of these types of problems in turn.

So economic problems were one of the issues that industrial workers faced in Britain after 1815.

And a key example of this are the Corn Laws, which were passed in 1815.

Bread was the main part of the diet of poor industrial workers.

The Corn Laws were introduced by the British Parliament and those laws placed tarts on foreign grain.

These tariffs were designed to help British farmers by protecting their profits against foreign competition.

However, they increased the food prices for industrial workers because some of the bread, some of the grain which had previously been sold in the country, now had additional taxes being placed on it.

This made it harder for many industrial workers to afford the food they needed to buy.

So I wanna check our understanding of some of those economic problems faced by industrial workers in Britain after 1815.

There are four statements on the screen.

I want you to number the statements from one to four to explain how the tariffs introduced by the Corn Laws led to industrial workers suffering from hunger.

Our four statements are the industrial workers struggled to afford bread, that bread costs in Britain were kept high, that more industrial workers suffered from hunger and that tariffs placed on foreign grain entering Britain.

So you need to put those four statements into the correct order from one to four, indicating how the Corn Laws led to industrial workers suffering from hunger.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay so for this task, you should have numbered our statement at the bottom, terrace being placed on foreign grain as number one.

That is what the Corn Laws actually were.

Parliament started taxing foreign grain.

Now this led to bread costs in Britain staying high because taxes pushed at the price of foreign bread.

Now because of those higher prices, many industrial workers struggled to afford bread.

So you should have written that as statement number three.

And once industrial workers were struggling to afford bread, that meant many started suffering from hunger.

So really well done if you got all of those correct.

'cause there was a lot to think about there.

A second key problem faced by industrial workers after 1815 were linked to politics, specifically the issue of restricted suffrage.

Now remember, if universal suffrage is a system where all adults can vote, restricted suffrage refers to a system where only a few people can vote because suffrage is all about that right to vote.

MPs in the House of Commons were elected.

Suffrage for parliamentary elections though was very limited, voting depended on property ownership, which excluded most industrial workers who were too poor to own any property of their own.

Without owning property they couldn't vote, so they didn't get a say over who represented them in the House of Commons and who made many of the big decisions on which laws were to be passed in Britain.

Only 1% of the population of the country could vote, which really emphasises just how restricted suffrage was in 1815.

So let's check our understanding of some of these political problems. I want you to identify whether each of the following groups was likely to have the right to vote by 1819.

You should indicate each answer, with a tick or a cross.

So our three groups are industrial workers, small shop owners, and wealthy landowners.

So for each group with a tick or a cross, indicate whether they were likely to have the right to vote or not, by 1819.

Pause the video here and press play, when you're ready to see the right answers.

Okay, well done for all your work on that task.

So thinking about our three groups, industrial workers rarely had the right to vote by 1819, they did not own enough property to qualify, they were too poor.

Even small shop owners rarely had the right to vote either.

Although small shop owners mostly would've been more wealthy than industrial workers, they still often didn't own enough property to meet the qualifications to get the vote.

This meant that most voters were wealthy landowners, those who had large amounts of property that qualified them to vote.

And this is why only 1% of people in the country were able to vote by 1819.

So as well as economic and political problems, industrial workers also faced considerable social problems. And what in particular we'll focus on is the issue of disease.

Industrial workers suffered from poor living conditions.

The living conditions and poverty of industrial workers made them more vulnerable to diseases like typhus and tuberculosis.

This is because many industrial workers who only received quite low wages from their jobs, weren't able to afford good quality housing.

They often lived in overcrowded and unsanitary parts of cities.

We can see this if we focus on the example of different areas in Manchester.

In Broughton, which was a largely middle class area of Manchester, the death rate per thousand was 15.

8.

Whereas in Ardwick, which was an area where mostly industrial workers lived, the death rate was 28.

6 per thousand.

Giving a really clear idea of how people's wealth and therefore the type of areas they could afford to live in could have a really big impact on how vulnerable they were to disease.

So let's make sure our understanding of that type of social problem is really secure.

I want you to write the missing words in the following two sentences.

Our first sentence says that the blank conditions of industrial workers, placed them at greater risk of catching certain diseases than wealthier groups.

And our second sentence says, that common diseases amongst industrial workers included typhus and blank? So pause the video here and write the missing words from both sentence one and two.

Okay well done for your work on that task.

So in our first sentence, the missing word should have been living.

The living conditions of industrial workers placed them at greater risk of catching certain diseases than wealthier groups.

And the missing word from the second sentence was tuberculosis.

Common diseases amongst industrial workers included typhus and tuberculosis.

So really well done if you've got both of those correct.

And that means we're now ready to put our knowledge about some of the problems faced by industrial workers into practise.

You have a table which shows us several specific problems. After studying each problem, I want you to categorise them as either an economic, political, or social problem.

One has been completed for you to make it really clear how I want you to complete this task.

So our completed example says that only 1% of the population could vote.

Well, that's a political problem because it's not about how much people are earning, it's also not really about people's day-to-day living conditions.

Instead, it's about their rights and the amount of power that people have.

So I've categorised that as a political problem.

Pause the video here, attend the remaining examples and impress play to see if you got them correct.

Okay well done for all of your effort on that task.

I asked you to categorise each of the examples in the table as either economic, political, or social.

So our answers should have looked like this.

We've seen already that the fact only 1% of the population could vote was a political problem.

The Corn Laws increasing the cost of bread was an economic problem.

The fact that mill workers were paid low wages and worked long days, would also be an economic problem.

That industrial cities like Manchester had no MPs in Parliament would be a political problem.

That unemployment was rising in the years after 1815 was an economic problem.

And that most areas where industrial workers lived were overcrowded, was a social problem.

So really well done, especially if you got all of those answers correct.

So now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today, where we are gonna focus on radicalism and reform.

Men such as William Cobett, and Henry Hunt were leading radicals in Britain after 1815.

Radicals like Cobett and Hunt argued that significant changes were necessary to help industrial workers and for the good of the country.

In the years after the Corn Laws were introduced in 1815, radicals such as William Cobett and Henry Hunt became increasingly popular with industrial workers around the country.

William Cobett published "The Political Register", a weekly newspaper, which had over 40,000 readers.

This shared his radical ideas.

Henry Hunt gained fame for his public speeches to large crowds, which he performed all across Britain.

In August, 1819, a crowd of 60,000 people, mostly industrial workers and their families, gathered in St.

Petersfield in Manchester to hear Henry Hunt speak.

Radicals like Cobett and Hunt argued that the most important reform needed in Britain was a change to the voting system.

In particular, both radicals supported universal suffrage.

So in other words, both radicals supported a massive increase in the amount of adults who would have the right to vote.

This would help to correct one of the major political issues which affected industrial workers as they were excluded from elections by the existing voting system.

However, Cobbett and Hunt argued that the importance of gaining universal suffrage for industrial workers went beyond politics.

Radicals argued that one of the problems of parliament in the years after 1815, was that lawmakers had no reason to pay attention to issues affecting industrial workers if the workers themselves lacked the right to vote.

However, if industrial workers had the ability to vote themselves, they could elect people to parliament who could help pass reforms positive changes on their behalf.

These reformers could change parliament itself to make sure industrial towns and cities could elect their own MPs who would pay greater attention to the economic and social issues which affected workers' lives.

William Cobbett argued that reformers in parliament could focus on lowering taxes such as by removing the hated Corn Laws or focus on reducing unemployment, both major problems faced by industrial workers.

Cobbett and Hunt also emphasised that industrial workers should not turn to violence in order to achieve the changes they wanted.

They admitted that this might make the process seem slow, but argued that peaceful campaigning and pressure on the government was the only way to successfully achieve improvements for industrial workers.

So we've just heard a lot which we have to think about, and I wanna make sure that new knowledge is secure.

So there's a question on the screen.

What was the main demand of radicals like William Cobbett and Henry Hunt? Was it for an end to unemployment, more protections against disease, the removal of the Corn Laws, or the introduction of universal suffrage? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the answer was D.

Radicals like William Cobbett and Henry Hunt demanded universal suffrage.

So let's try another question.

In 1819, roughly 60,000 people gathered in Manchester to hear Henry Hunt speak.

What does this suggest about the popularity of radical ideas? Is it that radical ideas had only a few very famous supporters? That radical ideas had a moderate amount of support, or that radical ideas had high levels of public support? Pause a video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay well done to everybody who said the correct answer was C.

The fact that 60,000 people gathered at St.

Petersfield in 1819 to hear Henry Hunt, clearly shows that there were vast levels of public support for radical ideas.

And let's try one more question.

We have a statement that reads, radicals argued that industrial workers should use violence to achieve change.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well then to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Hunt and Cobbett argued that only peaceful methods would successfully persuade the government.

The second says that Hunt and Cobbett argued that there were too few industrial workers for violence to threaten the government.

Which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay well done to everybody who said the correct answer was A Henry Hunt and William Cobbett argued that only peaceful efforts would successfully persuade the government.

They supported reform, not violence to achieve the changes that the industrial workers wanted.

So we are now in a good position to put all of our knowledge into practise.

So I have two tasks I want you to complete.

Firstly, which of the following was the main priority for radicals in years after 1815? Was it economic reform, political reform, or social reform? For your second task, I then want you to explain, why radicals prioritised achieving the type of reform you selected in question one.

For that, you should use the following sentence starter to help you.

Radicals prioritised, achieving blank reform because? So pause a video here, write your response, and then press play when you are ready to reflect on your answer.

Okay, great effort on that task.

So I asked you which of the following areas was the main priority for radicals in the years after 1815? The correct answer was political reform.

And so that set up the second part of our task where I asked you to explain why radicals prioritised achieving this type of reform.

So your answer may have included radicals prioritised achieving political reform because they believed that universal suffrage would allow industrial workers to elect reformers.

These reformers could then use their power as MPs to solve non-political problems for industrial workers like high taxes or reducing unemployment.

So to think of it in another way, it was almost like the first domino in a chain.

If industrial workers could secure political reform, that would start a chain reaction whereby they'd then see economic and social changes, which would help them later.

So really well done.

If you answer look something like that model, which we've just seen.

And now we are ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson today where we are gonna focus on an event, known as the Peter Lou massacre.

From 1812 to 1827, Britain was led by the government of Lord Liverpool, especially in the period from 1812 to 1822.

Many radicals argue that Lord Liverpool's government was reactionary as it seemed to oppose political and social progress.

The Corn Laws was seen as an example of this as a government had introduced the new tariffs on foreign grain, despite the fact that this would make bread more expensive for Britain's growing population of industrial workers.

At this time, there were many protests against the government.

Although some members of parliament proposed the introduction of political reforms, these were rejected by the government in both 1818 and 1819.

Furthermore, the government argued that many people calling for reform actually wanted to lead a revolution.

So harsh new laws were introduced.

For instance, from 1817 until 1818, the government made meetings with more than 50 people illegal.

The government also temporarily suspended the right known as Habeas Corpus, which meant that authorities could now hold people in jail for as long as they wanted without putting them on trial.

So let's check that our knowledge of what we've just heard is secure.

There's a statement on the screen which says, Lord Liverpool's government was quite revolutionary.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we must be able to justify our answer.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Lord Liverpool's government supported moderate proposals for the reform of parliament.

The second says that, the government supported reactionary measures like the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

Lord Liverpool's government supported reactionary measures like the suspension of Habeas Corpus Rather than making change to try and introduce social and economic progress, they seemed to have been opposing change and made harsh new laws.

In August, 1819, a crowd of 60,000 men, women and children gathered at St.

Peter's Field in Manchester to hear the radical Henry Hunt speak.

This was part of a series of mass meetings which had taken place in industrial cities across the country.

Some members of the crowd carried banners, calling for liberty and votes for all.

The stated aim of the meeting in Manchester was to consider the most legal and effective methods of obtaining a reform of parliament.

However, the authorities in Manchester worried that Henry Hunt would encourage the large crowd gathered at St.

Petersfield to riot against the government.

In the afternoon, the Yeomanry were ordered to arrest Henry Hunt.

As the soldiers charged forwards, they attacked members of the crowd.

Recent estimates suggest that 16 people were killed trampled under the yeomanry's horses or cut down by their sorts.

And hundreds more were injured.

In the weeks after the 16th of August 1819, the government did not punish the authorities or the yeomanry in Manchester for their actions and refused to investigate the event.

Instead, Henry Hunt was sentenced to over two years in prison and a new set of harsh laws known as the Six Acts were introduced, which included restrictions on the publication of radical newspapers and a ban on large meetings.

The events in Manchester and the government's lack of response to them cause great anger in newspapers in the days after the event.

One newspaper named the event the Peter Lou Massacre, sarcastically referring to the bloodshed which had occurred during the Battle of Waterloo just four years earlier.

So help us think about the Peter Lou Massacre a little bit more.

I want us to focus on the illustration which is shown on the screen.

Does the artist appear to sympathise with the yeomanry or the crowd? In the illustration the yeomanry and the men shown in blue uniform on the horses.

And I also want you as part of your answer, to identify two details to support it.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay so if we are thinking about this illustration of the Peter Lou massacre, well it's quite clear that the artist sympathises with the crowd rather than the yeomanry and some details that suggest that.

And the fact the yeomanry are armed with weapons, whereas we can see the crowd are unarmed.

We can see the crowd are injured and running away.

Some of them lay out across the floor after they've been hurt.

And we can see that women and children are in this crowd as well, groups that would typically be considered innocent.

So the artist is trying to make the yeomanry look like they're aggressive and the crowd look like they're quite innocent.

And if we think about the text at the bottom, this also makes it clear because the artist describes these events as a massacre.

So really well done for your work on that task.

Now I wanna make sure that our understanding of the Peter Lou massacre is really secure.

So we have four statements on the screen.

They say that Henry Hunt speaks to a crowd at 60,000 at St.

Peter's Field.

That yeomanry attacked the crowd killing 16 and injuring hundreds that poor conditions around the country anger industrial workers.

And that Henry Hunt was arrested and the Six Acts introduced.

I want you starting with the earliest, to sort those events into chronological order.

You should number your statements from one to four to indicate the answer.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the correct answers.

Okay so if we are thinking about our four events, the first of these is that poor conditions around the country angered industrial workers.

As a result of that, number two should be that Henry Hunt speaks to a crowd as 60,000 at St.

Peter's Field.

These were industrial workers and their families gathering to hear a radical after they were so angry and disappointed in the way they'd been left to live.

During this meeting, yeomanry attacked the crowd killing 16 and injuring hundreds.

So you should have written that as number three, which means our final statement that Henry Hunt was arrested in the six Acts introduced, should be written as number four because that's what happened after the event.

That actually, rather than the authorities who attacked unarmed crowds being punished, it was actually the radical Henry Hunt.

And more restrictions were introduced on ordinary industrial workers.

And let's try another question.

We have a statement that says it was unlikely that the crowd at Peterloo would have rioted.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was true, but we must justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the crowd gathered to hear about legal methods for reforming parliament, and the second says that the crowd was too small to pose any real risk of serious violence.

Which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay well done to everybody who said the correct answer was A.

The crowd gathered to hear about legal methods for reforming parliament.

Some of them carried banners such as things saying liberty and votes for all, demonstrating that they were not attempting to be violent, they weren't armed.

They were there to hear and discuss ideas.

So we are now ready to put all of our knowledge and understanding of the Peter Lou Massacre into practise.

We have a statement on the screen, it's Andeep's view, and he says "The government used force during the Peter Lou Massacre because the crowd was too violent." Is Andeep's view at the Peter Lou Massacre correct? I want you to write one paragraph to justify your answer.

Ensure that your paragraph includes at least one specific example and an explanation as part of your justification.

So pause video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So we had Andeep's view which we were considering.

Andeep said that the government used force during the Peter Lou Massacre because the crowd was too violent.

And I asked whether you thought that view was correct.

So your answer may have included, that Andeep's view that Peter Lou massacre is not correct.

For example, some members of the crowd carried banners calling for votes for all, and organisers at the meeting declared that it was held to consider legal methods of reform.

This shows that the crowd at Peterloo did not have violent intentions.

Instead, the government used force because it was reactionary and feared people asking for change.

So really well done if your own response looked something like our model answer there.

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson.

So in a good position to summarise our learning.

We've seen that industrial workers suffered from economic, political, and social problems in the years after 1815.

The government was reactionary.

It refused to make political reforms and passed the Corn Laws, which increased bread prices.

Radicals demanded reform focusing mainly on universal suffrage.

And a mass meeting was held in support of radical reform at St.

Petersfield in Manchester in 1819.

Authorities sent yeomanry into this meeting leading to many casualties.

This became known as the Peterloo Massacre.

So thank you you for all of your hard work in today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to have you joining me as we thought about political radicals and the Peter Lou Massacre.

I look forward to seeing you again in future.