Silk In Lyons

Erika Budde

Insurrections do not just spontaneously occur; rather they happen after some period of time where social discontent builds and manifests itself. This phenomenon appears in the French town of Lyon (often referred to as "the Second City of France") during the 1830's. The merchants purchased silk from the master weavers, also called "canuts," who ran the silk production. Tension developed between the merchants and the weavers. In order to understand the actual insurrections, we must first grasp the conditions in Lyon in the decade or so preceding these historical events.

Lyon is located 300 miles southeast of Paris, between the Saone and Rhone rivers at the foot of the Alps. Due to this prime location, Lyon developed commercially. From the 14th through the 17th centuries, Lyon flourished under royal protection. Beginning early in the 15th century, Lyon held a monopoly on the silk-industry in France, and the first stock market in France opened in 1506 in Lyon. But due to the Revolution of 1789, Lyonnais prosperity suffered.

Aside from Paris, the Revolution caused more damage in Lyon than in any other city. The reasons for this are also the reasons for the earlier prosperity: Lyon was the center of much of the activities of the Revolution. Being the center of a federalist revolt, Lyon faced total annihilation, as stated in a decree. From the 8th of August to the 9th of October 1793, Lyon was under siege. At the conclusion of the siege, 2,000 men, women, and children had been executed.

As can be expected during such harsh times, business was not good. The silk industry, nearing extinction, was not helped by feeble attempts to revitalize it. The organization controlling the silk trade, the "Grande Fabrique" imposed non-worker-friendly regulations during the late 18th to early 19th centuries, such as restrictions on the number and locations of looms. The Grande Fabrique eventually dissolved, and a new system sprouted in its place.

The new organization governing the Lyonnais silk trade (referred to as "the Fabrique") instigated three more rules and regulations which hurt the workers. The first change affected workers directly: in wage disputes, the employer's word was taken without question, whereas the employee had to prove wrongdoing; unauthorized associations of more than 20 people were prohibited (thus the prevention of unions); and each worker was required by law to carry a booklet called a "livret", in which his or her employer kept notes on the terms of service, personal conduct, debts, etc.

The second, less directly prohibitive rule was the abolition of professional requirements (i.e. apprenticeships). Because of this, anyone who could afford a loom could refer to themselves as "master weavers", which was previously only a term applied to a person after years of training and preparation.

The third change brought about by the Fabrique was the introduction of the Jacquard loom. While this eventually benefited silk production, it hurt the local weavers. The Jacquard loom was not only expensive, but so incredibly enormous that it required its own building (averaging 3.9 meters high). Therefore, only those who could afford to move to the suburbs of Lyon could benefit from the Jacquard loom. In addition, technological unemployment developed due to the mechanization of the weaving process.

Overhead costs were more expensive in the city than in the suburbs; therefore, city silk cost more than suburban silk. In addition to the increasing costs required to continue silk production, it was the master weaver (not the merchant) who bore the brunt of the costs associated with maintaining a Jacquard loom (such as mounting patterns). As with any location, once there is economic turmoil, distress is eminent.

Lyon had many problems by 1830. The city's good traits would also become its fatal flaws. It was among the world's largest and most important manufacturing centers for silk. The Fabrique employed 25% of Lyon's population. Silk and silk-related products accounted for half of Lyon's total commercial income and a third of the value of all French exports. The fact that Lyon's economy depended upon one single trade would soon prove to play a major role in the insurrections. As Prefect Gasparin (defined as "Chief Magistrate") said, "The unfortunate position of Lyon is that it has really only one industry and thus discontent here is never partial, but soon becomes general."

Between 1828 and 1830, the value of English silk imported in France had risen. Local silk manufacturers were facing strict competition, and according to the economic Laws of Supply and Demand, when there is competition, prices decrease. Though canuts' salaries decreased, the costs of living did not. To offset this imbalance, the canuts wanted a tariff to be placed on each piece of silk made. Merchants refused to pay, and hostility grew between merchants, and between merchants and master weavers.

A philanthropist/merchant attempted to settle the disputes between merchants and canuts. In 1828, Charles Berna created a community called "La Sauvagere." This community had men's and women's dormitories and a cheap restaurant for the shift-working weavers. But by 1832, La Sauvagere had become a financial disaster, and ended with Berna's death that same year.

Though the Fabrique directly caused much of the social turmoil leading to the insurrections, other factors contributed to the discontent of the canuts. Economic antagonisms exist in nearly every labor movement, yet something else happens that sets the movement in motion. In Lyon, it was the working conditions.

The Lyonnais weaver led a very unhealthy life. He or she would work between 14 and 18 hours per day, and 20 hours per day was not unheard of. The weaver was seated in an awkward position that caused him or her to breathe in the dust from the silk and from the machines. Air was not circulated, as windows were vehemently prohibited from being opened due to the exposure of the precious silk to the elements. In fact, there were even tunnels leading from building to building so that the silk would never be exposed to the outside air during manufacturing5. These unhealthy conditions had an impact on the well being of the weavers; physicians of the time said weavers were pale and unhealthy in appearance.

Antagonism between the merchants and the canuts was compounding. Merchants considered the canuts uncivilized savages. A common analogy of the time said: canuts are to merchants what construction workers are to architects. Yet, the canut culture placed great emphasis on education. By the late 1700's, 70% of male silk workers were literate. By 1830, at a time when 75% of all Frenchmen could not read or write, illiteracy was a social stigma in Lyon. In 1834, 2/3 of the workers could read and sign their names. To further demonstrate the educational levels of the canuts, Lyon had two worker newspapers (Paris had none). Education was the one (and probably only) issue where both merchant and weaver agreed. A physician and economist, Villerme, described the canuts:

In 1831, workers faced especially brutal economic times. In an attempt to offset financial strain, the canuts pressed the local government for a tariff on each item of silk made in Lyon. Then-prefect Bouvier Dumolard allowed tariff negotiations. On October 25, 1831, many thousands of canuts marched on the streets of Lyon, eagerly awaiting Dumolard's verdict on the tariff. The tariff passed and was to take effect on November 2.

November 2 came and went. By November 5, it was evident that the silk merchants had no intention of paying a tariff; they sent a letter to prefect Dumolard declaring such a tariff unconstitutional. On November 17, Dumolard released a letter stating that the tariff was not legally binding, but the merchants should pay it out of honor. This attempt to avoid confrontation with the merchants resulted in a strike instituted by the displeased canuts.

On Monday, November 21, 1831, the canuts assembled in front of the prefect. Dumolard placed National Guard units to prevent the migration of the strike to other parts of the city. In a weird twist of fate that soon proved gave the canuts momentum, the unit he placed to block them was composed of silk merchants. The sequence of events was disastrous: the canuts headed for the entrance of the Grand Cote, which was protected by the National Guard; at approximately 11pm, the National Guard fired upon the unarmed, approaching canuts. Many canuts lay dead or wounded.

While one of the units of the National Guard was composed of merchants, another was composed of master weavers. This unit was sent to block the canuts from entering other parts of the city. Needless to say, the canuts entered other parts of the city while the National Guard pretended not to see. The canuts had managed to take control of the Lyon6.

To calm the situation, prefect Dumolard dressed in full uniform and began speaking to the uprising canuts. The canuts captured him and held him prisoner. (He was later released unharmed, but his inability to control the canuts resulting in dismissal from his job.) With no prefect or any other form of governing body, the canuts marched all over Lyon.

Had the canuts been interested in a revolution, they could have begun one on that morning, but their intentions were not as such. On December 2, 1831, the rebellion had ended and power restored to prefect Dumolard. Shortly thereafter, he was replaced with a new prefect; one with the "special mission of preventing a second insurrection." This person was Adrien Etienne Pierre de Gasparin. His immediate goals were to restore order, calm the merchants and workers by resolving the tariff issue, and assess the means of preventing future trouble.

After restoring order, Gasparin expelled many of the Italian immigrant workers out of Lyon so as to create jobs for the local French residents. Next, he worked on a compromise. He agreed that the tariff was illegal, but he offered concessions to the worker community. The first was the establishment of a "common price for the manufacture of silk goods" which would "serve as jurisprudence when there's a disagreement between merchant and worker." Second, he created a government-subsidized loan office specifically dedicated to the canuts.

In theory, these were good ideas, though they failed in practice. One reason is that these concessions were not legally binding. Another reason is that these only helped the "aristocrats" of the working class. Loans were only given out to married master weavers, and the amount available was proportional to the number of looms an individual already owned. But, by March of 1832, the silk industry in Lyon had recovered from the effects of the rebellion.

However, the next month (April of 1832), a cholera epidemic struck France, and the amount of raw silk fell lower than it had been in over a decade. Prefect Gasparin, aware of the eminent dangers of another insurrection, improved the defense of Lyon. But conditions continued to escalate the intensity in Lyon.

The Republican Party in Lyon was vocal, yet small and weak, and it became prominent in the middle of 1832. The party reiterated how oppressed silk workers are, and credited it to political injustices. Prefect Gasparin sensed the overwhelming power the Republican Party sought, and took measures to control it. Ironically, it is the measures he took that spurred the next insurrection.

In 1834, an unidentified man was distributing Republican pamphlets. He was arrested, but the people of Lyon helped him escape. They blocked the police from pursuing him, and reinforcements were called in. The troops opened fire.

At the same time yet unrelated, vandals attacked the Prefecture. There were only 24 soldiers guarding the Prefecture. A considerable crowd assembled at the gates and shots were fired. But, the crowd soon dispersed when news spread of the fighting at other locations in Lyon. This was the beginning of the second Lyon uprising, which lasted from April 9 to April 15, 1834, and left over 300 people dead.

Whereas the November uprising gained momentum as time progressed, the April uprising was stronger at the beginning than at the end. By 1834, the city officials had a plan of action for controlling riots. The military was able to prevent migration to other parts of the city by dividing the city into sections and closing the streets. By April 11, the rebels were already facing problems. They were unable to get past barricades, and they were inexperienced in weaponry.

Most Lyonnais citizens did not fight, and were trapped in their homes for the duration of the rebellion. According to recorded data on the rebels, they were overwhelmingly young and either silk or construction workers. Most were unmarried males; females and married males either did not participate, or avoided arrest. There are no available records for the number of canuts actually involved. Prefect Gasparin claimed that the canuts had generally remained passive. Had they become involved, he claimed, the end result would have been different, though this cannot be proven conclusively.

After the end of the April uprising on April 15, 1834, the canuts felt a severe setback: the government suppressed their associations, and those who originally claimed to support the canuts were abandoning the worker movement.

Unlike so many social injustices, the worker movement in France is remembered. The city of Lyon has not forgotten its history. On Lyon's web site, the canuts museums and historical sites are prominently featured. If we could learn anything from their mistakes it would be an appreciation for the lifestyle endured by the silk workers in past, and hopefully not present or future, times.