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

My job today is to help guide you through our history resources in the lesson, and I'm gonna be working to make sure that by the end of our time together, you can securely meet our lesson objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, where we'll be working on describing changes in Britain's population and assessing the quality of living and working conditions in new industrial cities.

This is part of our unit on the Industrial Revolution, where we're asking ourselves, did industrialization revolutionise people's lives in Britain? In this lesson, we're really gonna be focusing on the example of Glasgow as a case study of industrialization in some of Britain's new industrial cities.

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

Those are urban, rural, migrated, unsanitary, and exploitative.

An urban area is a town or city.

A rural area is in the countryside.

People who have migrated have moved from one area to another.

If conditions are unsanitary, they are dirty and likely to damage people's health.

And finally, if something is exploitative, it involves treating others unfairly in a way that helps make money for you but could harm others.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts, and we're going to begin by focusing on urban migration.

The agricultural revolution led to significant improvements in the productivity of British agriculture.

Now, this was important because more food was produced than ever before.

And with more food, there was a growth in Britain's population.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain experienced rapid population growth, as we can see from our table.

Whereas in 1750, there were 7.

5 million people living in Great Britain, so that means England, Wales, and Scotland, this number had risen to 10.

5 million by 1801.

And after just another 40 years, that number had nearly doubled to 18.

5 million.

So we can see that Britain's population was growing massively between 1750 and 1841, and that also the pace of population change even seemed to increase in the early 19th century.

So let's just check our understanding of what we've heard in their lessons so far.

How did Britain's population change between 1750 and 1841? Did it reduce slightly, stayed the same, increase by more than half, or more than doubled? 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 D.

Between 1750 and 1841, the population of Great Britain more than doubled because it increased from 7.

5 million back in 1750 all the way to 18.

5 million by 1841.

So let's try another question to make sure our understanding is really secure.

I want you to write the missing word in the following sentence.

The, blank, revolution was critical for making the rapid increase in Britain's population possible.

So pause the video here, write what you think the missing word is, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

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

The agricultural revolution was critical for making the rapid increase in Britain's population possible.

Population change differed between areas of Britain.

Urban populations grew much faster than rural populations.

In other words, towns and cities were the areas of quickest and biggest population growth.

As we can see from our table, in 1700, 17% of the population of England and Wales were living in large towns and cities.

This had increased to 28% of the population by 1800.

And by 1850, almost half of the population, England and Wales, were living in large towns and cities.

This rapidly increasing proportion of the population living in towns and cities gives us a really clear impression of just how much urban areas must have been growing in this period when the Industrial Revolution was taking place.

Many people migrated from rural areas to industrial cities for work.

This was one of the major reasons for rapid increase in the urban population of Britain.

New industrial cities like Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow all grew rapidly.

Glasgow's population more than quadrupled from 1750 to 1841.

So, let's make sure our understanding is secure.

We have a statement that says population increase occurred at a similar rate across all areas of Britain.

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 need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that rural populations grew much more rapidly than urban populations.

The second says that urban populations grew much more rapidly than rural populations.

So which one of those 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 B was the correct justification.

Urban populations grew much more rapidly than rural populations.

Part of this was that during the Industrial Revolution, many people moved from rural areas to urban areas in search of work.

And let's try another question.

How much did Glasgow's population increase by between 1750 and 1841? Did it double, triple, or quadruple? 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 C.

The population of Glasgow quadrupled between 1750 and 1841.

Really impressive when we keep in mind that the overall population of Great Britain doubled in this period.

So there's a much more rapid rate of increase in a city such as Glasgow.

So now we're in a great position to summarise our learning about urban migration.

I want you to complete the passage shown on the screen by adding in the missing words.

The missing words are shown at the very bottom of the screen underneath the passage.

So pause the video here, fill the gaps, and press play when you're ready to see the right answers.

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

I asked you to complete the passage by adding in the missing words.

So you should have written, The agricultural revolution made it possible for Britain's population to increase rapidly after 1700.

The population of Great Britain more than doubled between 1750 and 1841.

Population increase was greatest in urban areas.

New industrial cities like Glasgow quadrupled in size as people migrated there from rural areas for work.

So well done for all of your effort on that task, especially if you managed to fill in all of the gaps correctly.

We're now ready to move on to the second part of our lesson today, when we are gonna think about what it was like to live in Glasgow during the Industrial Revolution.

Glasgow's rapid industrial and population growth led to it becoming known as the second city of the British Empire.

Now, impressive as that growth was, what problems may have been caused by rapid population growth in cities like Glasgow? Pause the video here and just reflect on some possible answers to that question.

Okay, so if we were thinking about what kind of problems might be caused by rapid population growth in cities such as Glasgow, you may have thought about issues such as housing.

Where is everybody going to live if a city's population increases really quickly? Or you may have even thought about problems such as cleanliness and sanitation.

If a population increases really quickly, is an area gonna be able to stay clean and healthy? Indicators such as death rates can be used to understand the quality of living conditions in an area.

Higher values for death rates can represent poor living conditions in an area.

At the start of the 19th century, the national death rate in Great Britain was falling.

However, there were clear and growing differences between the living conditions found in different parts of Britain.

As we can see from our table, in urban areas, from 1831 to 1839, the death rate, so the number of people dying from every 1000 people, was 26.

2.

In rural areas, from 1831 to '39, that number was 18.

2.

So far less people were dying in rural areas than urban areas.

If we then think about Glasgow from 1820 to 1829, the death rate in the city was 28.

6.

A decade later, from 1831 to 1839, the death rate in Glasgow had actually gone up.

It was 34.

2.

So let's just check our understanding of what we've just heard.

Which statement is most accurate for describing living conditions in the early 19th century? That rural areas were generally healthier than urban areas, that rural areas and urban areas were similarly healthy, or the urban areas were generally healthier than rural areas? 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.

Rural areas were generally healthier than urban areas in the early 19th century.

We can tell this because death rates were generally lower in rural areas than they were in urban areas.

And now we have a statement on the screen that says Glasgow differed from national trends for death rates.

Is this 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 need to be able to justify our response.

So, two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the average death rate for Great Britain fell at the start of the 19th century, whilst Glasgow's rose.

Our second statement says that the average death rate for Great Britain rose at the start of the 19th century, whilst Glasgow's fell.

So which one of those 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 average death rate for Great Britain fell at the start of the 19th century, but Glasgow's actually rose, suggesting that living conditions were becoming worse in the city.

Many of Glasgow's poor and recently migrated workers lived in the central areas of the city.

These areas were known as the Wynds.

By the 1830s, officials were beginning to pay more attention to conditions in the Wynds.

In 1839, J.

C.

Symons, an official with responsibility for conditions in Glasgow, investigated the living conditions of the city's workers living in the Wynds.

Symons' report included the following findings.

"The Wynds of Glasgow have a population which ranges from 15,000 to 20,000 persons.

This area is made up of a maze of lanes, out of which numberless entrances lead into small courtyards.

Each of these courtyards has a dunghill reeking in the centre.

Revolting as the outside of these places where, I was little prepared for the filth and poverty within the homes of these courtyards.

In similar rooms, visited at night, we found a whole lair of human beings littered along the floor.

Sometimes there were 15 or 20 people living in a single room, some clothed and some naked, men, women, and children, all huddled together.

Their beds consisted of straw mixed with rags.

There was generally no furniture in these places.

The only source of comfort was a fire." So let's check our understanding of what we've heard so far, and I want you to think in particular about those findings in J.

C.

Symons' report on the Wynds.

So we have a statement on the screen that says many people living in the Wynds lived in poverty.

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 is true.

But we need to be able to justify our response.

Two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Symons reported that, "beds consisted of straw mixed with rags.

There was generally no furniture in these places." The second says that Symons reported that it was, "made up of a maze of lanes, out of which numberless entrances lead into small courtyards." So which justification is better for showing that our original statement was true? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the better justification was A.

"Symons reported that, "beds consisted of straw mixed with rags.

There was generally no furniture in these places." This quote shows that many people living in the Wynds weren't able to afford good quality furniture and lived in pretty uncomfortable conditions because of their poverty.

So let's try another question.

We have an extract from J.

C.

Symons' report on the Wynds.

I want you to identify a quotation which shows that overcrowding was a problem in the Wynds.

You may indicate your answer simply by writing the number of the line where the quotation appears.

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

Okay, so thinking about our extract, we can see that overcrowding is a problem if we look at lines two and three, because in the report, Symons said that sometimes there were 15 or 20 people living in a single room.

This clearly indicates that overcrowding was an issue as many people had to live together in quite confined spaces.

And let's try a similar question.

On the screen, there is now a different extract from J.

C.

Symons' report.

I want you to identify a quotation or quotations from the extract which show that conditions in the Wynds were unsanitary.

Again, you might indicate your answer simply by writing the number of the line or lines where the quotations appear.

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

Okay, so thinking about our extract, we can see that there were unsanitary conditions in the Wynds where it says, "that each of these courtyards has a dunghill reeking in the centre." This tells us that there was a lot of waste simply left out in the open.

In line six and seven, we can also see that Symons says, "I was little prepared for the filth and poverty within the homes of these courtyards." So really well done if you were able to identify either of those two quotations, and especially if you identified both of them.

During the Industrial Revolution, the significant expansion of Glasgow led to it becoming famous as both the filthiest and one of the deadliest cities in Britain.

As we can see from our table, whereas the rural death rate from 1831 to '39 was 18.

2 per 1000 in Britain, in Glasgow, during the same decade, it was 34.

2.

In other words, nearly twice as high.

Because of their poverty, many Glasgow workers had little alternative but to live in the Wynds.

The overcrowded and unsanitary conditions made it easier for deadly diseases like tuberculosis and cholera to spread between people living in the Wynds.

So let's just check our understanding of that last bit of information we've heard.

I want you to identify two reasons why tuberculosis and cholera caused so many deaths in the Wynds.

Was it because the Wynds had no supply of food, because the Wynds were overcrowded, because the Wynds were unsanitary, or because the Wynds had high rates of violent crime? Remember, you're looking for two reasons to answer this question.

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

Okay, really well done to everybody who said the correct answers were B and C.

The Wynds were overcrowded.

As we've seen from J.

C.

Symons' report, sometimes 15 or 20 people were living in a single room, which made it very easy for infectious diseases to spread from one person to another.

The Wynds were also unsanitary.

There was poor waste management.

It was described as very filthy and often with waste left in the open by people's homes.

This also made it very easy for diseases to spread.

So, we are now in a good position to put all of our learning about living in Glasgow into practise.

I want you to answer the following question.

How did living conditions in Glasgow affect the death rate in the city in the early 19th century? As part of your answer, I want you to write one paragraph, and you should include a quote from J.

C.

Symons' report on living conditions in the Wynds as part of the answer.

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

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

So I asked you how did living conditions in Glasgow affect the death rate in the city in the early 19th century? And your answer may have included that overcrowding was a major problem in Glasgow in the early 19th century.

For example, JC Symons' report on living conditions in the Wynds said that, "sometimes there were 15 or 20 people living in a single room." Overcrowding made it easier for diseases to spread leading to a higher death rate in Glasgow than over parts of Great Britain.

Now remember, your answer really needed to have a quote from JC Symons' report in it.

So there should be something like the part of my answer that's been highlighted, really drawing your attention to our inclusion of that extra detail.

And now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today, where we are gonna think about working in Glasgow.

Cotton mills employed almost 1/3 of the workers in Glasgow in the early 19th century.

By 1839, there were 98 cotton mills in or near to the city.

The use of machines in Glasgow's cotton mills meant that mill owners could employ unskilled workers for their factories.

These unskilled workers were paid low wages, which actually fell in value between 1812 and 1836.

Mill owners were able to fire and replace workers easily due to Glasgow's rapidly rising population.

Mill workers also lacked protection whilst they worked.

Because the air in mills was often thick with cotton dust, many workers developed skin and lung diseases over time.

Other workers developed back pain from long days standing by machines.

Although there were some attempts to improve their working conditions in the 1820s, workers in cotton mills were unable to achieve any significant changes.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to write the missing word in the following sentence.

Workers were given little, blank, from hazards in Glasgow's cotton mills.

Pause the video here, write what you think the missing word is, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, really well done if you said that the missing word was protection.

Workers were given little protection from hazards in Glasgow's cotton mills.

A lack of breathing protection led to many workers developing lung diseases over time from inhaling the thick cotton dust in the air in those mills.

And we have another question, this time there's a statement on the screen that says it was difficult for mill owners to replace workers in their mills.

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 if you said that that statement was false.

But we need to be able to justify our answer.

So, two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the mills paid high wages which attracted many new workers.

The second says that Glasgow's population was rapidly rising, providing lots of workers.

So 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 B.

Glasgow's population was rapidly rising.

Remember that it quadrupled between 1750 and 1841, and that provided mill owners with plenty of potential workers who they could replace others with if they weren't happy with their actions and performance.

To help reduce their costs, the owners of Glasgow's cotton mills, like those elsewhere around Britain, commonly employed children from the age of nine or 10, and sometimes they even hired children younger than that.

Working practises for children were exploitative.

Employers could make those under the age of 16 work for shifts up to 12 hours long.

Yet, child workers were usually paid between one and six shillings per week, worth just three to 20 pounds in today's money.

Children were often hired to work around the machines in Glasgow's cotton mills because of their small size and nimble fingers.

Many worked as piecers, who had to mend broken threads of cotton during the spinning process.

Even smaller children often worked as scavengers, which meant that they were responsible for cleaning up cotton beneath the machines.

If you look at the image you can see on the screen, a scavenger can be seen crawling underneath the machine, showing just how difficult that working practise must have been for some children.

All of this had to be done whilst the machines continued to operate, making it very dangerous.

This led to many serious injuries, with some children losing fingers, arms, or even being killed by the cotton spinning machines.

In 1825 and 1833, the British Parliament introduced restrictions on the use of child labour in cotton mills, including a ban on hiring children under the age of nine and an eight-hour limit on work for children under the age of 13.

However, mills were not inspected regularly, and mill owners were rarely punished harshly when they did break these laws.

As a result, many mills did not respect the new laws restricting the use of child labour and continued to employ young children for long hours even after 1833.

So let's check our understanding of what we've just heard about work in Glasgow.

Why were children often employed in Glasgow's cotton mills? I want you to select two answers.

Is it because they were better suited to jobs like scavenging beneath machines, because they could be paid less than adults, because they were more familiar with new technologies being used, or because there were shortages of adult workers in Glasgow? Remember, you're looking for two answers to this question.

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

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answers were A and B.

Children were better suited to jobs like scavenging beneath machines because of their small size compared to adults, and they could be paid less than adults, which helped mill owners to make bigger profits.

And let's try another question.

Which statement is the most accurate? By 1833, the law banned the employment of all children under the age of 16 from working in cotton mills.

By 1833, the law banned the employment of all children under the age of 13 from working in cotton mills.

Or, by 1833, the law restricted the employment of children under the age of 13 working in cotton mills.

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 C.

By 1833, the law restricted the employment of children under the age of 13 working in cotton mills.

Neither answer A or B is correct, because whilst there were bans introduced on work for children in cotton mills, this was only for children under the age of nine.

So, now we're in a great position to put all of our understanding and all of our learning into practise.

Each of the following objectives could be used to describe working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills: difficult, exploitative, and unsafe.

I want you to pick one of the objectives, and then write one paragraph to justify why your chosen adjective accurately describes working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills.

You should use evidence from the lesson to support your answer.

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

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

So I asked you to pick an adjective and write one paragraph to justify why it would accurately describe working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills.

Your answer may have included: Working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills could be described as exploitative because of the use of child labour.

For example, children aged nine and 10 were often employed to scavenge cotton from beneath spinning machines.

This was exploitative because children were paid very little for the work that they did and faced many dangers working so close to machines.

Your answer may also have included: Working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills could be described as unsafe because of a lack of protection for workers.

For example, scavengers who cleaned up cotton from underneath machines had to work whilst the machine remained in operation.

This was unsafe because it created a high risk that workers might get caught by the machines, which led to some losing limbs or even being killed.

Your answer may also have included: Working conditions in Glasgow's cotton mills could be described as difficult because of the long working hours involved.

For example, even after new legal restrictions were introduced, children aged 13 to 16 often completed 12-hour shifts in mills.

This was difficult because long working days demanded lots of energy from child workers who were likely to be exhausted by the time they finish their shifts.

So really well done if your own response looks something like one of those three models we've just seen.

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

So we're in a good position to summarise our learning about the Industrial Revolution and urban migration.

We've seen today that Britain's population more than doubled between 1750 and 1841.

The population grew fastest in new industrial towns and cities like Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow as migrants arrived from rural areas.

Living conditions for most workers in cities like Glasgow were overcrowded and unsanitary, leading to high death rates.

And working conditions in cotton mills were often unpleasant and exploitative, including the common use of child labour.

So, really well done for all of your work in today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to have you joining me, and I look forward to seeing you again as we think further about the Industrial Revolution and whether it truly revolutionised people's lives in Britain.