CHAPTER I

THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO THE COMMUNE (1789-1871)

The economic legislation of the French Revolution was guided by individualistic ideas which expressed the interests of the rising middle classes who felt a necessity of removing the obstacles in the way of economic initiative and of personal effort. These interests and ideas dictated the law of March 2-17, 1791, which abolished the guilds and inaugurated the era of competition in France (_Liberté du Travail_). The law declared that henceforth everybody was "free to do such business, exercise such profession, art, or trade, as he may choose."[2]

[2] _Les Associations Professionelles Ouvrières_, Office du Travail (Paris, 1899), vol. i, p. 7.

The abolition of the guilds cleared the way for the technical changes that had just begun and the development of which was yet in the future. These changes may be summarized as the application of science to industry and the introduction of machinery. The process went on in France irregularly, affecting different industries and different localities in various degrees. The first machine (_machine à vapeur_) was introduced in France about 1815; in 1830 there were about 600 in operation. Some idea of the later changes may be gained from the following table giving the number of machines in France from 1839 to 1907:

_Year_ _No. of Machines_ _Total Horsepower_ 1839 2,450 33,000 1851 5,672 71,000 1861 15,805 191,000 1871 26,146 316,000 1881 44,010 576,000 1891 55,967 916,000 1901 75,866 1,907,000 1910 82,238 2,913,013[3]

[3] _Annuaire Statistique_.

The introduction of machinery meant the absorption of a larger part of the population in industry, the concentration of industry in a smaller number of establishments and the absolute and relative increase in the numbers of the working population of France.

This class of the population was regulated in its economic action for nearly a century by another law passed June 14-17, 1791, and known by the name of its author as the law Le Chapelier. The law Le Chapelier, though dictated by the same general interests and ideas as the law on the guilds, was made necessary by special circumstances.

The abolition of the guilds had as one of its effects an agitation among the journeymen for higher wages and for better conditions of employment. During the summer of 1791, Paris was the scene of large meetings of journeymen, at which matters of work and wages were discussed. The movement spread from trade to trade, but the struggle was particularly acute in the building trades. Profiting by the law of August 21, 1790, which gave all citizens the "right to assemble peacefully and to form among themselves free associations subject only to the laws which all citizens must obey,"[4] the carpenters formed _L'Union fraternelle des ouvriers en l'art de la charpente_, an association ostensibly for benevolent purposes only, but which in reality helped the carpenters in their struggle with their masters. The masters repeatedly petitioned the municipality of Paris to put an end to the "disorders," and to the "tyranny" of the journeymen. The masters complained that a general coalition of 80,000 workingmen had been formed in the capital and that the agitation was spreading to the provincial towns.[5] The municipal authorities tried to meet the situation, but their "notices" and "decrees" had no effect. They then appealed to the Constituent Assembly for a general law on associations and combinations. The result was the law Le Chapelier.

[4] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 8.

[5] H. Lagardelle, _L'Évolution des Syndicats Ouvriers en France_ (Paris, 1901), p. 13.

The report by which the bill was introduced brought out very clearly the individualistic ideas by which the legislators of the Revolution were inspired. "Citizens of certain trades," read this report, "must not be permitted to assemble for their pretended common interests. There is no longer any corporation (guild) in the State; there is but the particular interest of each individual and the general interest...." And further, "It is necessary to abide by the principle that only by free contracts, between individual and individual, may the workday for each workingman be fixed; it is then for the workingman to maintain the agreement which he had made with his employer."[6]

[6] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 11-12.

The law identified the new combinations with the ancient guilds. Its first clause declared that "whereas the abolition of all kinds of corporations of citizens of the same estate (_état_) and of the same trade is one of the fundamental bases of the French Constitution, it is prohibited to re-establish them _de facto_ under any pretext or form whatsoever". The second clause formulated the prohibition to form trade organizations in terms which left nothing to be desired in clearness and precision. It read: "The citizens of the same estate or trade, entrepreneurs, those who run a shop, workingmen in any trade whatsoever, shall not, when assembled together, nominate presidents, nor secretaries, nor syndics, shall not keep any records, shall not deliberate nor pass resolutions nor form any regulations with reference to their pretended common interests." The fourth clause declared all acts contrary to this law unconstitutional, subject to the jurisdiction of the police tribunals, punishable by a fine of 500 _livres_ and by a temporary suspension of active rights of citizenship. The sixth and seventh clauses determined higher penalties in cases of menace and of violence. The eighth clause prohibited all "gatherings composed of artisans, of workingmen, of journeymen or of laborers, or instigated by them and directed against the free exercise of industry and work to which all sorts of persons have a right under all sorts of conditions agreed upon by private contract (_de gré a gré_)". "Such gatherings are declared riotous, are to be dispersed by force, and are to be punished with all the severity which the law permits."[7]

[7] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 13-14.

After the law was passed by the Assembly, the author of the law, Le Chapelier, added:

I have heard some say that it would be necessary to make an exception in favor of the Chambers of Commerce in cities. Certainly you understand well that none of us intend to prevent the merchants from discussing their common interests. I therefore propose to insert into the proceedings the following clause: "The National Assembly, considering that the law which it has just passed does not concern the Chambers of Commerce, passes to the order of the day."

The proposition was adopted. "This last vote," remarks the official historian of the _Office du Travail_, "demonstrates sufficiently that the law was especially directed against the meetings, associations and coalitions of workingmen."[8]

[8] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 14.

The determination to prevent collective action on the part of the workingmen also guided the legislative activity of Napoleon. In 1803, during the Consulate, a law was passed against coalitions; the same law contained a provision whereby all workingmen were to have a special certificate (_livret_)[9] which subjected them to a strict surveillance of the police. The law of 1803 against coalitions was replaced in 1810 by the clauses 414-416 of the Penal Code which prohibited and punished all kinds of coalitions. These articles which made strikes and all collective action a crime, and which showed clearly discrimination against workingmen, were as follows:

[9] The obligation of the _livret_ was abolished in 1890. G. Weill, _Histoire du Movement Social en France_ (Paris, 1904), p. 332.

Art. 414. Any coalition among those who employ workingmen, tending to force down wages unjustly and abusively, followed by an attempt or a commencement of execution, shall be punished by imprisonment from six days to one month and by a fine of 200 to 3,000 francs.

Art. 415. Any coalition on the part of the workingmen to cease work at the same time, to forbid work in a shop, to prevent the coming or leaving before or after certain hours and, in general, to suspend, hinder or make dear labor, if there has been an attempt or a beginning of execution, shall be punished by imprisonment of one month to three months maximum; the leaders and promoters shall be punished by imprisonment of two to five years, and

Art. 416. There shall also be subject to penalty indicated in the preceding article and according to the same distinctions, those workingmen who shall have declared fines, prohibitions, interdictions and any other proscriptions under the name of condemnations and under any qualification whatsoever against the directors of the shops and employers, or against each other.

In the case of this article as well as in that of the preceding, the leaders and promoters of the crime, after the expiration of their fine, may be made subject to the surveillance of the police for two years at least and five years at most.[10]

[10] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 18-19.

The prohibition against combination and organization was aggravated for the workingmen by articles 291-294 of the Penal Code which forbade any kind of associations of more than twenty persons. These articles were made more stringent by the Law of 1834 which prohibited associations even of twenty persons, if they were branches of a larger association.[11]

[11] _Ibid._, pp. 19-20, and p. 26.

The workingmen, however, soon began to feel that the _Liberté du Travail_ as interpreted by the laws of the country put them at a disadvantage in the struggle for existence. Individually each one of them was too weak to obtain the best bargain from his employer. This was notoriously so in the industries in which machinery was making headway, but the relations between employer and workingmen were aggravated by competition even in those industries where the old conditions of trade did not change perceptibly for some time. Competition forced the employer to become a "calculator above everything else" and "to consider the workingman only from the point of view of the real value which his hands had on the market without heed to his human needs."[12] The workingman, on the other hand, to remedy his individual helplessness was driven to disregard the law and to enter into combinations with his fellow-workers for concerted action.

[12] M. Du Cellier, _Histoire des Classes Laborieuses en France_ (Paris, 1860), p. 362.

The figures published by the Department of Justice give the number of those prosecuted for violating the law on strikes--the number of accused, of acquitted and of condemned. These figures are incomplete. They give, however, some idea of the frequency and persistence with which the workingmen had recourse to strikes in spite of the law. The figures have been published since 1825. The table on the next page gives the annual figures from that date to 1864, when a new law on strikes was passed.

There is other information to show that the strikes often assumed the character of a general movement, particularly under the influence of political disturbances. During the years that followed the Revolution of July (1830) the workingmen of France were at times in a state of agitation throughout the entire country, formulating everywhere particular demands, such as the regulation of industrial matters, collective contracts and the like.[13]

[13] Octave Festy, _Le Movement Ouvrier au Début de la Monarchie de Juillet_, _passim_.

------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+--------- | | | |Condemned|Condemned| | | | |to Prison|to Prison| |Number| | | for One |for Less |Condemned | of | | | Year or | than a |to Pay a Year |Cases |Accused|Acquitted| More | Year |Fine Only ------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+--------- 1825 | 92 | 144 | 72 | 1 | 64 | 7 1826 | 40 | 244 | 62 | 3 | 136 | 43 1827 | 29 | 136 | 51 | 2 | 74 | 9 1828 | 28 | 172 | 84 | .. | 85 | 3 1829 | 13 | 68 | 26 | 1 | 39 | 2 1830 | 40 | 206 | 69 | 2 | 134 | 1 1831 | 49 | 396 | 104 | .. | 279 | 13 1832 | 51 | 249 | 85 | 1 | 140 | 23 1833 | 90 | 522 | 218 | 7 | 270 | 27 1834 | 55 | 415 | 155 | 7 | 227 | 26 1835 | 32 | 238 | 84 | 1 | 141 | 12 1836 | 55 | 332 | 87 | .. | 226 | 19 1837 | 51 | 300 | 64 | 5 | 167 | 64 1838 | 44 | 266 | 86 | 1 | 135 | 44 1839 | 64 | 409 | 116 | 3 | 264 | 26 1840 | 130 | 682 | 139 | 22 | 476 | 45 1841 | 68 | 383 | 79 | .. | 237 | 67 1842 | 62 | 371 | 80 | 2 | 263 | 26 1843 | 49 | 321 | 73 | .. | 240 | 8 1844 | 53 | 298 | 48 | .. | 201 | 49 1845 | 48 | 297 | 92 | 3 | 778 | 124 1846 | 53 | 298 | 47 | .. | 220 | 31 1847 | 55 | 401 | 66 | 2 | 301 | 32 1848 | 94 | 560 | 124 | 2 | 399 | 35 1849 | 65 | 345 | 61 | 1 | 241 | 42 1850 | 45 | 329 | 59 | 14 | 182 | 74 1851 | 55 | 267 | 33 | 6 | 199 | 29 1852 | 86 | 573 | 119 | 2 | 396 | 56 1853 | 109 | 718 | 105 | 1 | 530 | 82 1854 | 68 | 315 | 51 | 13 | 196 | 55 1855 | 168 | 1182 | 117 | 24 | 943 | 98 1856 | 73 | 452 | 83 | 4 | 269 | 96 1857 | 55 | 300 | 37 | 11 | 204 | 48 1858 | 58 | 269 | 34 | 1 | 202 | 32 1859 | 58 | 281 | 29 | .. | 223 | 29 1860 | 58 | 297 | 34 | .. | 230 | 33 1861 | 63 | 402 | 78 | .. | 283 | 41 1862 | 44 | 306 | 44 | 1 | 199 | 62 1863 | 29 | 134 | 17 | .. | 43 | 74 ------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------

In many cases, the strikes were spontaneous outbursts of discontent among unorganized workingmen. Frequently, however, the strikes were either consciously called out or directed by organizations which existed by avoiding the law in various ways.

These organizations were of three different types: the _compagnonnages_, the friendly societies (_mutualités_) and the "societies of resistance".

The _compagnonnages_ originated under the guild-system and can be traced back as far as the fifteenth century. Their development was probably connected with the custom of traveling which became prevalent among the journeymen of France about that time.[14] A journeyman (called _compagnon_ in French) would usually spend some time in visiting the principal cities of France (make his _tour de France_) to perfect himself in his trade. A traveling _compagnon_ would be in need of assistance in many cases and the _compagnonnages_ owed their development to the necessity of meeting this want.

[14] Octave Festy, _Le Movement Ouvrier au Début de la Monarchie de France_ (Paris, 1900), vol. i, pp. 600 _et seq._

The _compagnonnages_ consisted of bachelor journeymen only. If a member married or established himself as master, he left the _compagnonnage_. Besides, admission to the _compagnonnage_ was dependent on tests of moral character and of technical skill. Thus, the _compagnonnages_ always embraced but a small part of the workingmen--the élite from the technical point of view. To attain the required technical standard, members had to pass some time as aspirants before they could become _compagnons_.

The organization of the _compagnonnages_ was very simple. All the _compagnons_ of the same trade lived together in one house, usually in an inn, kept by the so-called _mère_ (mother) or _père_ (father) of the trade. The _compagnons_ were generally the only boarders in the house. If not numerous enough to occupy the entire house, they had one hall for their exclusive occupation. Here they held their meetings, initiated new members, and kept their records and treasury. Here, also, _compagnons_ arriving from other towns made themselves "recognized" by special signs and symbols.

All the _compagnons_ of France were divided among three "orders" called _devoirs_. The _devoirs_ had strange names indicating the legends with which the origins of these organizations were connected. The _devoir_, "Sons of Master Jack" (_Enfants de Maitre Jacques_) was founded, according to the story, by one of the master-builders of King Solomon's Temple. The "Sons of Solomon" (_Enfants de Solomon_) were sure that their order was founded by King Solomon himself. The "Sons of Master Soubise" regarded another builder of Solomon's Temple as the founder of their _devoir_. Each _devoir_ consisted of a number of trades, and sometimes one and the same trade was divided between two _devoirs_.

Ceremonies and rites constituted an inseparable part of the _compagnonnages_. The initiation of a new member, the "recognition" of a newly arrived _compagnon_, the meeting of two traveling _compagnons_ on the road, etc., were occasions for strange and complicated ceremonies which had to be accurately performed. These ceremonies were due in a large measure to the secrecy in which the _compagnonnages_ developed under the ancient régime, persecuted as they were by the royal authorities, by the church, and by the master-craftsmen.

Within the _compagnonnages_ the feeling of corporate exclusiveness and the idea of hierarchical distinctions were strong. Emblems of distinction, such as ribbons, canes, etc., were worn on solemn occasions, and the way in which they were worn, or their number, or color, indicated the place of the _compagnonnage_ within the whole corporate body. Many riots and bloody encounters were occasioned between _devoir_ and _devoir_ and between different _compagnonnages_ within each _devoir_ by disputes over "ribbons" and other emblems appropriate to each. For instance, the joiners were friends of the carpenters and of the stonecutters, but were enemies of the smiths whom the other two trades accepted. The smiths rejected the harness-makers. The blacksmiths accepted the wheelwrights on condition that the latter wear their colors in a low buttonhole; the wheelwrights promised but did not keep their promise; they wore their colors as high as the blacksmiths; hence hatred and quarrels. The carpenters wore their colors in their hats; the winnowers wanted to wear them in the same way; that was enough to make them sworn enemies.[15] Besides, the _compagnonnages_ did not strive to embrace all members of the same trade or all trades. On the contrary, they were averse to initiating a new trade and it sometimes took decades before a new trade was fully admitted into the organization.

[15] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 95.

While these features harked back to the past, the economic functions of the _compagnonnages_ anticipated and really were a primitive form of the later syndicat. The _compagnonnages_ offered effective protection to the _compagnons_ in hard stresses of life as well as in their difficulties with their masters. "The 'devoir' of the compagnons" (read the statutes of one of these societies) "is a fraternal alliance which unites us all by the sacred ties of friendship, the foundations of which are: virtue, frankness, honesty, love of labor, courage, assistance and fidelity."[16] These abstract terms translated themselves in life into concrete deeds of mutual aid and of assistance which were immensely valuable to the traveling _compagnons_. A traveling _compagnon_, on arriving at a city or town, would only have to make himself "recognized" and his fellow-compagnons would take care of him. He would be given lodging and food. Employment would be found for him. If sick or in distress, he would receive aid. If he wished to leave the town to continue his _tour de France_, he would be assisted and would be accompanied some distance on the road.

[16] Maxime Leroy, _Syndicats et Services Publics_ (Paris, 1909), p. 12.

With their simple organization, the _compagnons_ were able to exert a strong economic influence. They served as bureaus of employment. One _compagnon_, elected _rouleur_, was charged with the duty of finding employment for _compagnons_ and "aspirants". He kept a list of those in need of work and placed them in the order of their inscription. Usually the masters themselves addressed the _rouleurs_ for workingmen, when in need of any.

This fact gave the _compagnonnages_ a control over the supply of labor. They could withhold labor from a master who did not comply with their demands. They could direct their members into other towns of the _Tour_ if necessary, as everywhere the _compagnons_ would find friends and protection. They could, therefore, organize strikes and boycott a master or workshop for long periods of time. In fact, by these methods the _compagnonnages_ struggled for higher wages and better conditions of employment as far back as the sixteenth century. During the Great Revolution the _compagnonnages_ existed in twenty-seven trades and directed the strike-movement described above. They attained the height of their development during the first quarter of the nineteenth century when they were the only effective workingmen's organizations exerting an influence in the economic struggles of the time.

The _compagnonnages_ persisted in several trades during the larger part of the nineteenth century. After 1830, however, their influence declined. The new industrial conditions reduced the significance of the personal skill of the workingmen, shifted the boundaries of the ancient trades, and entirely transformed most of them. The rapid development of the modern means of communication made the _tour de France_ in its old form an anachronism. The spread of democratic and secular ideas brought the medieval usages and ideas of the _compagnonnages_ into disrepute and ridicule. Several attempts to reform the _compagnonnages_ and to bring them into harmony with the new conditions of life were made by members of the organization, but with no results.[17]

[17] On the _compagnonnage_ see, J. Connay, _Le Compagnonnage_, 1909; E. Martin St. Leon, _Le Compagnonnage_, 1901; Agricol Perdiguier, _Le Livre du Compagnonnage_, 1841.

While the _compagnonnages_ were reconstituting themselves during the Consulate and the First Empire, another form of organization began to develop among the workingmen. This was the friendly or benevolent society for mutual aid especially in cases of sickness, accident or death. Several such societies had existed before the Revolution and the law Le Chapelier was directed also against them. "It is the business of the nation," was the opinion of Le Chapelier, accepted by the Constituent Assembly, "it is the business of the public officials in the name of the nation to furnish employment to those in need of it and assistance to the infirm".[18] Friendly societies, however, continued to form themselves during the nineteenth century. They were formed generally along trade lines, embracing members of the same trade. In a general way the government did not hinder their development.

[18] _Les Assoc. Profess._, vol. i, p. 193.

Mrs. Beatrice Webb and Mr. Sidney Webb have shown that a friendly society has often been the nucleus of a trade union in England. In France the friendly societies for a long time played the part of trade unions. The charge of promoting strikes and of interfering with industrial matters was often brought against them.[19] There were 132 such trade organizations in Paris in 1823 with 11,000 members, and their numbers increased during the following years.

[19] _Ibid._, p. 199.

The form of organization called into being by the new economic conditions was the _société de résistance_, an organization primarily designed for the purpose of exercising control over conditions of employment. These societies of resistance assumed various names. They usually had no benefit features or passed them over lightly in their statutes. They emphasized the purpose of obtaining collective contracts, scales of wages, and general improvements in conditions of employment. These societies were all secret, but free from the religious and ceremonial characteristics of the _compagnonnages_.

One of the most famous of these societies in the history of the French working-class was the _Devoir Mutuel_, founded by the weavers of Lyons, in 1823. This society directed the famous strikes of the weavers in 1831 and 1834. Its aim, as formulated in its statutes, was: first, to practice the principles of equity; second, to unite the weavers' efforts in order to obtain a reasonable wage for their labor; third, to do away with the abuses of the factory, and to bring about other improvements in "the moral and physical condition" of its members. The society had 3,000 members in 1833.[20]

[20] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i. pp. 201-203.

In 1833 the smelters of copper in Paris formed themselves into a society which was to help them in their resistance against employers. Two francs a day was to be paid to every member who lost employment because he did not consent to an unjust reduction in his wages or for any other reason which might be regarded as having in view the support of the trade; in other cases of unemployment, no benefit was allowed, in view of the fact that in ordinary times the smelters were seldom idle.[21] The society was open to all smelters, without any limitation of age; it was administered by a council assisted by a commission of representatives from the shops, elected by the members of the society of each shop. The society was soon deprived, however, of its combative character by the government.[22]

[21] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 204.

[22] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 204.

A strong society of resistance was organized by the printers of Paris in 1839. Though secret, it gained the adherence of a large part of the trade. In 1848 it had 1,200 members--half of all the printers at that time in Paris. It was administered by a committee. Through its initiative a mixed commission of employers and workingmen was organized which adopted a general scale of wages. This commission also acted as a board of mediation and conciliation in disputes between employers and workingmen.[23]

[23] _Ibid._, pp. 205-6.

The _compagnonnages_, _mutualités_ and resistance-societies aimed partly or exclusively to better conditions of employment by exerting pressure upon employers. These societies reveal the efforts that were being made by workingmen to adjust themselves to the economic conditions of the time. But after 1830, other ideas began to find adherents among the French workingmen; namely, the ideas of opposition to the entire economic régime based on private property and the idea of substituting for this system a new industrial organization.

The history of the socialist movement of France before 1848 can not here be entered into. It has been written and rewritten and is more or less known. For the purposes of this study, it is only necessary to point out that during this period, and particularly during the revolutionary period of 1848, the idea of co-operation, as a means of abolishing the wage system, made a deep impression upon the minds of French workingmen.[24]

[24] On the history of French socialism: R. T. Ely, _French and German Socialism_ (1878); Th. Kirkup, _A History of Socialism_ (1906); G. Isambert, _Les Idées Socialistes en France_ (1905); P. Louis, _Histoire du Socialisme Français_ (1901).

The idea of co-operation had been propagated before 1848 by the Saint-Simonists and Fourierists, and particularly by Buchez who had outlined a clear plan of co-operation in his paper _L'Européen_ in 1831-2. Similar ideas were advanced during the forties by a group of workingmen who published _L'Atelier_. But only with the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848, and under the influence of Louis Blanc, did the co-operative idea really become popular with the workingmen. Between 1848 and 1850 the enthusiasm for co-operative societies was great, and a considerable number of them were formed. On July 6, 1848, the Constituent Assembly voted a loan of 3,000,000 francs for co-operative societies, and this sum was divided among 26 societies in Paris and 36 in the provinces.[25] But the number of those founded without assistance was much greater; about 300 in Paris and many more in the provinces. Of these societies most perished within a short time while the rest were dissolved by the administration of Napoleon III after the _coup-d'état_ of 1851.[26]

[25] Georges Renard, _La République de 1848_.

[26] Albert Thomas, _Le Second Empire_ (Paris, 1907).

The Revolution of 1848 was an important moment in the history of the French working-class. Though the socialist idea of the "Organization of Work" (_L'Organisation du Travail_) which was so prominent during the Revolution passed into history after the days of June, it left an impression upon the minds of French workingmen. The belief in a possible social transformation became a tradition with them. Besides, the Revolution gave a strong impulse to purely trade organizations such as the _sociétés de résistance_. Before 1848 they had existed in a few trades only. The period of the Revolution witnessed the formation of a large number of them in various trades and strengthened the tendency towards organization which had manifested itself before.

During the first decade of the Second Empire all workingmen's organizations were persecuted; most of them perished; others went again into secrecy or disguised themselves as mutual aid societies.

With the advent of the second decade of the Empire the labor movement acquired an amplitude it had never had before. Its main characteristic during this period was a decided effort to break the legal barriers in its way and to come out into the open. The workingmen's chief demands were the abolition of the law on coalitions and the right to organize.

The workingmen were given an opportunity to express their views and sentiments on occasions of National and International Exhibitions. It had become a custom in France to send delegations of workingmen to such exhibitions. In 1849 the Chamber of Commerce of Lyons sent a delegation of workingmen to the National Exhibition in Paris. In 1851 the municipality of Paris sent some workingmen to the International Exhibition in London. A delegation was sent again to London in 1862 and to Paris in 1867.

The workingmen-delegates published reports in which they formulated their views on the condition of their respective trades and expressed their demands and aspirations. These reports have been called the _cahiers_ of the working-class. The authors of the reports--workingmen themselves, elected by large numbers of workingmen--were representatives in the true sense of the term and voiced the sentiments and ideas of a large part of the French workingmen of their time.

The reports published by the delegates of 1862 contain a persistent demand for freedom to combine and to organize. The refrain of all the reports is: "Isolation kills us".[27] The trade unions of England made a deep impression on the French delegates and strengthened their conviction of the necessity of organization. "Of 53 reports emanating from 183 delegates of Paris, 38 by 145 delegates express the desire that syndical chambers be organized in their trades."[27]

[27] G. Weill, _op. cit._, pp. 63-65.

The government of the Empire, which hoped to interest the workingmen in its existence, gave way before their persistent demands. In 1864, in consequence of a strike of Parisian printers which attracted much public attention, the old law on coalitions was abolished and the right to strike granted.

The right to strike, however, was bound up with certain other rights which the French workingmen were still denied. Unless the latter had the right to assemble and to organize, they could profit but little by the new law on coalitions. Besides, the French workingmen were generally averse to strikes. The reports of 1862, though demanding the freedom of coalition, declared that it was not the intention of the workingmen to make strikes their habitual procedure. The delegates of 1867, who formed a commission which met in Paris for two years, discussing all the economic problems that interested the workingmen of the time, were of the same opinion. A special session of the Commission was devoted to the consideration of the means by which strikes might be avoided. All agreed that, as one of the delegates expressed it, strikes were "the misery of the workingmen and the ruin of the employer"[28] and should be resorted to only in cases of absolute necessity. What the delegates demanded was the right to organize and to form "syndical chambers". They hoped that with the help of these organizations, they would avoid strikes and improve their economic condition.

[28] _Commission Ouvrière de 1867, Recueil des Procés-Verbaux_, vol. i, p. 28.

In the beginning of 1868, a number of delegates to the Exhibition of 1867 were received by the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Public Works to present their views and demands. The vice-president of the Commission, M. Parent, indicated clearly what the workingmen meant by "syndical chambers" in the following words:

We all agree to proceed by way of conciliation, but we all have also recognized the necessity of guaranteeing our rights by a serious organization which should give the workingmen the possibility of entering easily and without fear into agreement with the employers.... It is thus in order to avoid strikes, guaranteeing at the same time the wages of the workingmen, that the delegates of 1867 solicit the authorization to establish syndicats in each trade in order to counter-balance the formidable organization of the syndical chambers of the merchants and manufacturers.... The workingmen's syndical chambers, composed of syndics elected by the votes of the workingmen of their trade, would have an important rôle to fulfil. Besides the competent experts which they could always furnish for the cases subject to the jurisdiction of the prud'hommes, for justices of the peace and for the tribunals of Commerce, they could furnish arbiters for those conflicts which have not for their cause an increase in wages. Such are: the regulations of the workshops, the use of health-endangering materials, the bad conditions of the machinery and of the factory which affect the health of the workingmen and often endanger their lives, the protection of the inventions made by workingmen, the organization of mutual and professional education, which cannot be entirely instituted without the help of the men of the workshop, etc.[29]

[29] Lagardelle, _Évolution des Syndicats_, pp. 218-9.

On the 30th of March, 1868, the Minister of Commerce and Public Works announced that without modifying the law on coalitions, the government would henceforth tolerate workingmen's organizations on the same grounds on which it had heretofore tolerated the organizations of employers. With this act began the period of toleration which lasted down to 1884, when the workingmen's organizations were brought under the protection of a special law.

The declaration of toleration gave free scope to the workingmen to form their syndical chambers. Some syndicats had been openly formed before. In 1867, the shoemakers had formed a society--the first to bear the name of syndicat--which had openly declared that it would support members on strike and would try to defend and to raise wages. But only after the declaration of the government in 1868 did these societies begin to increase in numbers.

While organizing for resistance, the workingmen during this period, however, placed their main hopes in co-operation; the co-operative society of production was to them the only means of solving the labor question. As one of the delegates to the Workingmen's Commission of 1867 put it: "Salvation is in association" (_Le salut c'est l'association_).[30] The main function of the syndical chamber was to promote the organization of co-operative societies.

[30] _Commission Ouvrière de 1867_, vol. i, p. 28.

The revival of enthusiasm for co-operative societies began in 1863. Men of different political and economic views helped the movement. It found supporters in liberal economists, like M. Say and M. Walras; it was seconded by Proudhon and his followers, while a number of communists took an active part in it. Profiting by the experience of 1848-50, the workingmen now adopted a new plan. The co-operative society of production was to be the crowning part of the work, resting upon a foundation of several other organizations. First the members of one and the same trade were to form a syndical chamber of their trade. The syndical chamber was to encourage the creation of a "society of credit and savings" which should have for its aim the collection of funds by regular dues paid by the members. Such "societies of credit and savings" began to develop after 1860, and they were considered very important; not only because they provided the funds, but also and mainly because they helped the members to become acquainted with one another and to eliminate the inefficient. With a society of credit in existence, it was deemed necessary to create a co-operative of consumption. The productive co-operative society was to complete this series of organizations which, supporting one another, were to give stability to the entire structure.

The plan was seldom carried out in full. Co-operatives of production were formed without any such elaborate preparation as outlined above. However, many "societies of credit and saving" were formed. In 1863 there were 200 of them in Paris; and in September, 1863, a central bank, _La Société du Credit au Travail_ was organized. Similar central banks were formed in Lyons, Marseilles, Lille and other large cities.

In Paris the _Credit au Travail_ became the center of the co-operative movement between 1863 and 1868. It subsidized successively _L'Association_ (Nov., 1864-July, 1866) and _La Co-opération_ (Sept., 1866-Feb., 1867)--magazines devoted to the spread of co-operative ideas. It gave advice and information for forming co-operatives. Most of the co-operative enterprises of the period were planned and first elaborated in the councils of this society. Finally it furnished the co-operatives with credit. Its business done in 1866 amounted to 10½ million francs.[31]

[31] P. Hubert-Valleroux, _La Co-opération_ (Paris, 1904), pp. 14-17.

In 1868 the co-operative movement, after several years of development, suffered a terrible blow. On November 2nd, the _Credit au Travail_ became bankrupt; it had immobilized its capital, and had given out loans for too long periods, while some of the other loans were not reimbursed. The bank had to suspend payment and was closed. The disaster for the co-operative movement was complete. The _Credit au Travail_ seemed to incarnate the co-operative movement; "and its failure made many think that the co-operative institution had no future".[32]

[32] P. Hubert-Valleroux, _op. cit._, p. 16.

The failure of the co-operative movement turned the efforts of the workingmen into other channels. They now began to join the "International Association of Workingmen" in increased numbers and to change their ideas and methods.

The "International", as is well known, was formed in 1864 by French and English workingmen. The French section, during the first years of its existence, was composed mainly of the followers of Proudhon, known as _mutuellistes_. The program of the _mutuellistes_ was a peaceful change in social relations by which the idea of justice--conceived as reciprocity or mutuality of services--would be realized. The means advocated were education and the organization of mutual aid societies, of mutual insurance companies, of syndicats, of co-operative societies and the like. Much importance was attached to the organization of mutual credit societies and of popular banks. It was hoped that with the help of cheap credit the means of production would be put at the disposal of all and that co-operative societies of production could then be organized in large numbers. The _Mutuellistes_ emphasized the idea that the social emancipation of the workingmen must be the work of the workingmen themselves. They were opposed to state intervention. Their ideal was a decentralized economic society based upon a new principle of right--the principle of mutuality--which was "the idea of the working-class".[33] Their spokesman and master was Proudhon who formulated the ideas of _mutuellisme_ in his work, _De la Capacité Politique des Classes Ouvrières_.

[33] P. J. Proudhon, _De la Capacité Politique des Classes Ouvrières_ (Paris, 1865), p. 59.

Between 1864 and 1868, the "International" met with little success in France. The largest number of adherents obtained by it during this period was from five to eight hundred. Persecuted by the government after 1867, it was practically dead in France in 1868.[34] But in 1869 it reappeared with renewed strength under the leadership of men of collectivist and communist ideas, which were partly a revival and survival of the ideas of 1848, partly a new development in socialist thought.

[34] A. Thomas, _Le Second Empire_, p. 332.

One current of communist ideas was represented by the Blanquists. Blanqui, a life-long conspirator and an ardent republican who had been the leader of the secret revolutionary societies under the Monarchy of July, took up his revolutionary activity again during the latter part of the Second Empire. A republican and revolutionary above everything else, he had, however, gradually come to formulate in a more precise way a communistic program, to be realized by his party when by a revolutionary upheaval it would be carried into power. The Blanquists denounced the "co-operators" and the "mutuellistes" and called upon the workingmen to organize into secret societies ready, at a favorable moment, to seize political power. Towards the end of the Second Empire, the Blanquists numbered about 2,500 members in Paris, mainly among the Republican youth.[35]

[35] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 332.

The other current of communist ideas had its fountainhead in the "International" which Caesar de-Paepe, Marx and Bakounine succeeded in winning over to their collectivist ideas. The congresses of the "Association" in Brussels in 1868 and in Bâle in 1869 adopted resolutions of a collectivist character, and many members of the French section were won over to the new ideas.[36]

[36] E. E. Fribourg, _L'Association Internationale des Travailleurs_ (Paris, 1871).

The success of the "International" in France in 1869 was the sudden result of the strike-movement which swept the country during the last years of the Second Empire. The members of the "International" succeeded in obtaining financial support for some strikers. This raised the prestige of the "Association", and a number of syndicats sent in their collective adhesion. It is estimated that toward the end of 1869 the "International" had a membership of about 250,000 in France.

These facts had their influence on the French leaders of the "International". They changed their attitude toward the strike, declaring it "the means _par excellence_ for the organization of the revolutionary forces of labor".[37] The idea of the general strike suggested itself to others.[38] At the Congress of Bâle in 1869, one of the French delegates advocated the necessity of organizing syndicats for two reasons: first, because "they are the means of resisting the exploitation of capital in the present;" and second, because "the grouping of different trades in the city will form the commune of the future" ... and then ... "the government will be replaced by federated councils of syndicats and by a committee of their respective delegates regulating the relations of labor--this taking the place of politics."[39]

[37] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 363.

[38] _Ibid._, p. 358.

[39] James Guillaume, _L'Internationale, Documents et Souvenirs_ (Paris, 1905), vol. i, p. 205.

Under the influence of the "International" the syndicats of Paris--there were about 70 during the years 1868-1870--founded a local federation under the name of _Chambre Fédérale des sociétés ouvrières de Paris_. This federation formulated its aim in the following terms:

This agreement has for its object to put into operation the means recognized as just by the workingmen of all trades for the purpose of making them the possessors of all the instruments of production and to lend them money, in order that they may free themselves from the arbitrariness of the employer and from the exigencies of capital.... The federation has also the aim of assuring to all adhering societies on strike the moral and material support of the other groups by means of loans at the risk of the loaning societies.[40]

[40] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 352.

These organizations were entirely swept away by the events of 1870-71: the Franco-Prussian War, the Proclamation of the Republic, and especially the Commune. After 1871 the workingmen had to begin the work of organization all over again. But the conquests of the previous period were not lost. The right to strike was recognized. The policy of tolerating workingmen's organizations was continued, notwithstanding a few acts to the contrary. But, above all, the experience of the workingmen was preserved. The form of organization which they generally advocated after the Commune was the syndicat. The other forms (_i. e._, the _Compagnonnages_ and the secret _Société de résistance_) either disappeared or developed independently along different lines, as the friendly societies.

In other respects, the continuity of the labor movement after the Commune with that of the preceding period was no less evident. As will be seen in the following chapter the problems raised and the solutions given to them by the French workingmen for some time after the Commune were directly related to the movement of the Second Empire. The idea of co-operation, the _mutuellisme_ of Proudhon, and the collectivism of the "International" reappeared in the labor movement under the Third Republic.