Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism: A Study of Mid-Nineteenth Century Toulouse, France 0873955293

Citation preview

[Studies in European Social Histoi Leo A. Loubere, Editor

I 1

i

4

I!

Z-o

^lass, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism^ study of MID-NINETEENTH-CENTURY TOULOUSE, FRANCE^ RONALD^AMINZADE

7/oo

BIBLIOTHEK

\State University- of New York Pre^s- /

BIBLIOTHEK

\o

JU%

State University of New York Press, Albany © 1981 State University of New York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the*case of brief quotations embodied in critical Articles and reviews. For information, address State University of New York Press, State University Plaza, Albany, N.Y., 12246

Library ofCongress Cataloging in Publication Data ‘ ’ Aininzad.e, Ronald, 4 949-^

\ Class, politics, and early industrial capitalism. Originally presented as the authof’s thesis, Univer/ sity of Michigan. / \* f 5 Bibliography: p.,313 \•' ~ Includes index. 1. Labor and laboring classes — France — Toulouse — Political activity — History. 2. Artisans — France — Toulouse — History. 3. Social classes — France — Toulouse — History. 4. Toulouse — Politics and government. I. Title. 330.944'86 80-28284 HD8437.T68A46 1981 ISBN ^87395-528-5 & ISBN 0-87395-529-3^pbkj

Sfo

for M.J. and Daniel



■SS.2

gy

5 ?

ilj

i

I2 cn

Q

II Hf IP Ij] 11! s:l

•Cl

p

!

?

!

S

S

S

=

,

3

i

s

ox

p r-

'O O'

Hi ■g-o5

XO CM OO

oil

W>

CM

M3 xd

p o>"

O O'

p x©

5

cm

c S —

^8

Rl

gsg

■3

—Q

E-S.S

3

s

oo

p

p

°q

x©

\O

co

-Mi cm Im

“

I

■g ““

1M= 1 ?3 3-5 3

I

I

Hl

U ! u I I S

,1l si

MIO ■ 1

a ° i-^'S

s

§■

“•S-8

EE

£^5

iiWjMilpiiHPW iH S--B I a 5 g 3 S i- 8-

2-

g 79

g "

Hi

]: 20

I

1

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

dustry. The term proprietaire (“property owner”) was commonly used by the aristocracy in place of an occupational designation, but it is a rather ambiguous term that was also sometimes used by members of the bourgeoisie. “There is no French word for ‘gentleman’,” notes Theodore Zeldin. “The French equivalent to it, which a man would use after his name when he wished to show that he had no occupation, is pro­ prietaire." 1 The wealth figures for proprietaires in Table 1 thus provide only a rough estimate of changes in aristocratic wealth. They suggest that, in terms of wealth, the local aristocracy was a declining force during the middle decades of the century, accounting for 9.6% of local in­ heritance records and 33.8% of the wealth documented in those records in 1826, but 17.1% of inheritance records and only 12.4% of total wealth in 1869 (see Table 1). Even during the Second Empire, when French factory industry was growing rapidly, very few local aristocrats invested any of their money in industrial ventures. The few who did made, by and large, unsuccessful investments.' The local legitimist newspaper, the Gazette du Languedoc, which espoused the views of the city’s aristocracy, championed the virtues of agriculture and denounced the evils that accompanied industrial development.’ Commercial capital and the activities it supported provided a liveli­ hood for an important segment of the city’s bourgeoisie. Wholesale merchants (negotiants) constituted the wealthiest fraction of the Toulousain bourgeoisie. Although in 1826 only 4.5% of those Toulousains who left behind inheritance records were commercial capitalists, this group owned 24.3% of the wealth documented in these records (see Table 1). Despite a decline from their economic position in 1846, by 1869 wholesale merchants still remained the wealthiest segment of the city’s bourgeoisie, owning 32.8% of the documented wealth but constituting only 6.4% of those listed in inheritance records. There was no large group of industrial capitalists controlling a sizable proportion of the city’s wealth in any of the three years documented in Table 1. Industrial capitalists do not even show up in the Toulousain inheritance record statistics until 1869, at which time they possessed only 7% of the total wealth. Industrial capital based on investments in large-scale industry accounted for a very limited proportion of Toulousain property holding during this period. The Gass Structure of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Toulouse

Inheritance records provide a glimpse of the distribution of wealth among local property holders, but since most Toulousains had little or no

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

21

property to bequeath, we must turn to other sources in order to analyze the socioeconomic structure of the entire population. The best available documents for mapping the class structure of mid-nineteenth-century Toulouse are the manuscript censuses of 1830 and 1872.'° In 1830 census takers made their way through the streets of Toulouse collecting infor­ mation about the occupations, marital status, age, residences, and wealth of 60,350 individuals. In 1872 an even larger number of census takers were employed to collect similar information on 110,990 of the city’s residents. These manuscript census documents provide us with the most comprehensive survey of the city’s inhabitants during the middle decades of the century." In order to delineate the class structure of Toulouse during this period, it was necessary to classify the 1,410 occupational titles listed in these census manuscripts into class categories. Occupational titles provide in­ formation about technical relations of production, that is, about what people do in their jobs, about the tasks they perform. Such titles by themselves often tell us very little, however, about the social relations of peoples’jobs. Some people who used the occupational title carpenter, for example, may have been employers, others may have been self-employ­ ed, and still others may have been wage laborers. Class analysis, rather than grouping together all those who share the same occupational title into the same category, must distinguish among those sharing the same occupational title on the basis of their relationship to the means of pro­ duction. A person’s relationship to the means of production refers to whether he or she exercises control over productive resources, including money capital, physical capital, or labor power," rather than to one’s location in status hierarchies. Some of the occupational titles listed in the census manuscripts, such as negotiant, entrepreneur, or ouvrier, designate both technical and social relations of production, telling us not only what a person did in their work but also whether they owned capital or sold labor power. These occupational titles designate class locations because the occupational activities they indicate are class functions. The problem arises in the case of those occupations which do not provide any indi­ cation of control over capital or the sale/purchase of labor power. In such cases, three supplementary sources of information were relied upon in order to divide occupational titles into class categories: occupational modifiers (e.g., master, journeyman, apprentice), wealth designations, and industrial surveys.13 The occupational titles in the 1830 and 1872 manuscript censuses were grouped into three major class categories — bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and working class. These social classes were not undifferentiated masses; each contained within them social

I

22

a

I

I i

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

strata that represented diverse short-term economic interests, income and prestige levels, life styles, and social situations. Social classes, in other words, were not homogeneous with respect to the life situations they embodied. The subdivisions listed in Tables 2 and 3 on pages 23 and 24 reflect the internal stratification of the city’s working class, petty bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. The figures in Tables 2 and 3 are based upon a systematic sample of every tenth individual listed in the manu­ script censuses. The bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and working class comprise the vast majority of labor force members listed in the manuscript census samples, 84.2% in 1830 and 89.7% in 1872 (see Table 2). Four additional categories — agriculture, military/police, clergy, and proprietaires — account for the remainder of the labor force. The agriculture category included only 4.1% of the city’s labor force in 1830 and 3.4% in 1872. It was composed of agricultural laborers who worked on plots of land in the .outerlying sparsely inhabited areas of Toulouse but within city limits.14 Because only those soldiers living off base rather than in the military barracks were included in the manuscript census listings, the police and military category is minuscule, accounting for only .4% of the labor force in 1830 and 1872. Members of the clergy, mostly nuns and monks, accounted for only 1.7% of the labor force in 1830 and 1.6% in 1872. The final category in Tables 2 and 3 is composed of nonparticipants in the wage labor force, including housewives, who performed production and ■services within the household for no wages, as well as children.15 Changes in the manuscript census figures from 1830 to 1872 reflect the rapid urban population growth that took place in Toulouse during the middle decades of the century. All of this increase was due to rural-urban migration, not to any natural increase of the population.16 During the period from 1821 to 1851 Toulouse grew faster than any other city in France, with a growth rate of 79%.17 By 1872 only 38% of those listed in the manuscript census sample had been bom in the city; 49% of the city’s population had been bom in the surrounding rural area of the HauteGaronne and its six neighboring departments.18 Most of the migrants were former sharecroppers and agricultural day laborers from the sur­ rounding region.1’ A majority of those listed in the 1872 manuscript census sample as having been bom outside of Toulouse took up work­ ing-class occupations (66%) and a substantial portion of the migrants (22%) listed artisanal occupations.

Social Class Composition

TABLE 2 Toulouse’s Labor Force, 1830 1872

of

1872 Census Sample

1830 Census Sample

Social Classes

I. Bourgeoisie Industry and finance Commerce Administration Professionals Rentiers Total

n

“I? 76 29 78

Mental .................................. Artisans Factory workers Putting-Out ....................... Day Laborers Transport workers Domestic servants ........ Services and commerce ...

3.0

1.1 3.1

13

.5 8.4

Try

111. Working Class

6T~”

Ti7

n

II. Petty Bourgeoisie Commerce Industry Total

Percent Labor Force

Percent Labor Force

Percent Labor Force

Percent Working Class

20.2 2.7 5.6 10.1 2.7

30.1

13 1

19.5 12.7

255

69 331 215

8.5

Total.................................. 1694 67.0

IV. Other Agriculture Military/Police Clergy................ Proprietaires ...

Total Total Labor Force Non-members of labor force ............................

Missing; No occupation listed..............

100 Percent Petty Bourgeo­ isie 53 2 46.8

n

rr

n 104’ 10 43 243 400

129 40 147 230

.5 2.0 .6 2.2 3.5

5.2 22.4

576

8.8

35.5 13.6 36.4 6.1

4.0 8.6

510 69 142

Percent Bourgeoisie

n ~30

101 216

~ibT

Percent Labor Force

Percent Bourgeo­ isie 8?4~

100

FT 4.1 8.4 15.1

4.1

100

Percent Labor Force

167 449

Percent Labor Force 4.3 2.6 6.9

n

Percent Labor Force

n "282

386 1431 550 335 846 196 504 598

5.9 21.9 8.4 5.1 12.9

3.0 7.7

9.1

4846

74.0

n

Percent Labor Force

4j”“

220

.4

6.9 25.5 39.9

100 Percent Petty Bourgeo­ isie ~621“ 37.2 100 Percent Working Class 8O~

29.5

113 6.9 17.5 4.0

10.4 123 100

3.4 .4

1.7

26 103

9.6

318

1.6 4,9

15.8

667

10.3

6538

100

2832

46.9 per cent of total population

4438

40.0 per cent of total population

679

11.3 per cent of total population

123

2524

total population 6.035 Source: A.M.: Recensements de 1830. 1872.

100

_____

23

11.099

1.1 per cent of total population

TABLE 3 Composition of Social Class Categories. 1830, 1872

■i

i

I. Bourgeoisie Industry and finance: manufacturers (33%; 50%), entrepreneurs (33%; 33%) bankers (33%; 17%). Commerce: wholesale merchants (67%; 62%), wholesale agents or brokers (1%; 33%), commerce students (32%; 5%). Administration: government (14%; 18%), military and police (86%; 60%), church (0%; 13%), education (0%; 10%). Professional: lawyers, judges, notaries (31%; 31%), doctors, pharmacists, veterinarians (22%; 12%), university professors, men of letters (15%; 13%), law, medical, veterinary students (23%; 32%), engineers, chemists, architects (9%; 12%). Rentiers: rentier (92%; 100%), bourgeois (8%; 0%).

1

II. Petty Bourgeoisie Commerce: tavern, cate, restaurant, and cabaret owners (35%; 34%), grocers and food retailers (17%; 30%), clothing retailers (16%; 14%), shopkeepers (33%; 22%). Industry: small-scale manufacturers (0%; 17%), master artisans (100%; 83%).

•a

III. Working Class Mental: clerks (46%; 24%), government clerks (20%; 16%), legal clerks (9%; 5%), clerks in banks, commerce, transport, and communication (6%; 40%), clerks and foremen in industry (2%; 3%), schoolteachers (17%; 13%). Artisans: clothing (39%; 32%), building trades (24%; 31%), food (9%; 7%), metalwork (9%; 9%), furniture (3%; 4%), transportation (4%; 4%), luxury goods (5%; 4%), printing (3%; 4%), pottery, barrels, leather, etc. (4%; 4%). Factory Workers: textiles (14%; 29%), metals (4%; 8%). tobacco (1%; 14%), food (12%; 5%), wood and furniture (7%; 5%), brick and tile (9%; 4%), leather, clothing and accessories (3%; 3%), chemicals, candles, gas (6%; 2%), paper and cardboard (3%; 3%), baskets, brushes, matresses (3%; 2%), industry un­ specified (38%; 25%). Putting-out: clothing (100%; 88%), shoes (0%; 12%). Day Laborers: joumaliers (17%; 12%), terrassiers (3%; 4%), sans profession (15%; 68%), brassier (63%; 12%), travailleurs, ouvriers, manoeuvres, hommes dtequipe (2%; 4%). Domestic Servants: servants (67%; 77%), maids and chambermaids (33%; 23%). Services and Commerce: laundresses, ironers, cleaners (28%; 23%), vendors (49%; 37%), nurses, midwives, personal services (3%; 4%), entertainment (8%; 8%), misc. services-stable boys, chimney sweeps, knife sharpeners, mail carriers, etc. (13%; 28%). IV. Other Agriculture: agricultural laborers (32%; 5%), farmers (2%; 11%), gardeners (53%; 70%), dairymen and shepherds (13%; 6%), winegrowers, fishermen, lumbermen (1%; 7%). Military/Police: soldiers (60%; 31%). policemen (40%; 69%). Clergy: pnest (35%; 23%), nuns, monks (63%; 72%), seminarians (2%; 5%).

Proprietaries: proprietaries (100%; 100%).

Nonmembers of Labor Force: family members such as housewives, children, etc. (98%; 99%), other - orphans, beggars, disabled, retired, etc. (2%; 1%).

24

J

I I

I f !

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

25

The Bourgeoisie of Toulouse The “bourgeoisie” category in Table 2 was defined structurally to in­ clude those who exercised control over large-scale capital or capitalist state or ideological apparatuses and derived their incomes primarily from interest, rent, and profit rather than from wages. In nineteenth-century France the term bourgeois was generally used to refer to persons of in­ dependent means. The term was not, however, in its common everyday usage, applied to everyone who enjoyed a certain level of income. The French historian, Jules Michelet, noted in 1845: “Many an artisan who earns five francs a day says without hesitation ‘my bourgeois’ to the famishing rentier, who may receive an income of 300 francs a year and walks around in an old black suit coat in the middle of January.”20 It was not simply one’s level of income but the way in which one’s income was acquired that made one a member of the bourgeoisie. The term “my bourgeois” was commonly used to mean “my boss,” which suggests that one of its connotations was to distinguish between those who sold their labor power to an employer and those who did not.21 In nineteenth-century France the term bourgeois also connoted eco­ nomic independence, financial security, social stability, respectability, and conformism. In contrast to most wage laborers of the period, the bourgeois was typically a sedentary person, well-established in a town or city, easily locatable and identifiable, with a secure income and visible means of support.22 Not only did the bourgeois acquire their money differently than did workers; they had more money and spent it dif­ ferently. Even those bourgeois whose incomes did not permit them a standard of living much higher than some workers had a very different style of living, marked chiefly by differences in expenditures for housing, domestic servants, and education. In the absence of modem heating, lighting, and sanitary facilities, and given the relative paucity of consumer goods, bourgeois homes reflected social class position primar­ ily in terms of their spaciousness and the presence of domestic servants. Pierre Bleton estimates that during the Second Empire the average French working-class family of four persons spent 73% of its income on food, 17% on clothing, 6% on housing, and 4% on various nonsubsistance expenses.22 The consumption pattern of the average French bourgeois family of four, with an income typically more than twice that of their working-class counterparts, involved average expenditures of 19% on food, 29% on clothing, 14% on housing, 4% on domestic services, and 34% on various other expenses.24 While industrialists and financiers composed a very small proportion of the bourgeoisie of Toulouse in both 1830 and 1872, the commercial

26

■

j i

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

bourgeoisie remained one of the largest, as well as one of the wealthiest, groups of local property owners (see Table 2). The commercial bourgeoisie of Toulouse derived their incomes from business activities which dictated a style of life very different from that of the bourgeois doctor, lawyer, official, or rentier. Risk-taking, reliance on monopoly, organized correspondence, bookkeeping, supra-local and sometimes in­ ternational connections and a reliance on long-term credit characterized the careers of commercial capitalists.25 Their capital, the source of their livelihood, was subject to the disastrous effects of wars or bankruptcies, and, since so many local merchants derived their livelihood from the regional grain trade, it was also subject to the impact of poor harvests and changing central state tariff policies. Their incomes, in other words, were far less stable than those of bourgeois officials and professionals. High-level administrators and professionals also made up a large proportion of the city’s bourgeoisie (see Table 2). High-level adminis­ trators were classified as members of the bourgoisie because they exercised directive control over the resources and laborers in capitalist state and ideological institutions and were involved in the formulation of the central policies of these institutions rather than simply in their implementation. The city’s administrative elite was composed largely of military officials, but it also included high-level government, church, and educational officials. Many of these officials possessed considerable amounts of land and liquid capital that provided them with important sources of income. Local professionals were also classified as members of the local bourgeoisie. Although the term bourgeois was readily applied by nineteenth-century Toulousains to doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, an analysis of class structure in terms of social relations of production makes professionals a rather ambiguous group because of the diversity of their sources of income. Professionals earned fees and salaries from their professional activities, but many of them were also landlords and property owners who received part of their incomes in the form of rent and profits from their savings, stocks, bonds, and properties. Although some professionals depended primarily upon salaries and fees, others were property holders of considerable means. In the 1830 manu­ script census sample, 55% of the city’s professionals were described by census takers as “wealthy.” For nineteenth-century French professionals, titles as public functionaries or lawyers were sometimes nominal and professional activities were sometimes not very time-consuming, often merely providing a prestigious position and some supplementary in­ come.24 In Toulouse men who practiced, taught, or studied law composed a large proportion of the liberal professions. The city was an adminis-

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

27

trative and judicial center for the entire southwest of France and the numerous government bureaucracies were the major local employer of those possessing legal talents. The existence of a parlement and of various administrative bodies during the Old Regime had meant the presence of large numbers of lawyers, jurists, and attorneys in the city. Law students, as well as local veterinary, medical, and business students, were classified as members of the bourgeoisie even though they were not directly engaged in production relations. Since they occupied “pre-class” positions linked to bourgeois class destinies, they were categorized as members of the bourgeoisie. Independent property owners (rentiers) received incomes from inter­ est, rent, or profits derived from capital investments or real estate, but the term rentier does not specify whether the source of that income was from commercial, landed, financial, or industrial investments. The sources of rentier incomes were often varied, including shares in business enter­ prises, interest payments on government bonds, and rents from rural and urban real estate. The term rentier was often used in nineteenth-century France to denote bourgeois who had retired and lived off the savings or interest from investments accumulated during the course of a successful business career.2’ Some of those using the title in the manuscript censuses may have been former shopkeepers or master craftsmen who managed to accumulate small savings or property holdings upon retirement. Many of those who listed the title rentier as their occupation in the censuses were elderly or retired persons, including many widows living off of savings or inheritances. Those individuals who listed their occupations in the census as proprietaires were categorized separately from the bourgeoisie because of the ambiguity of this occupational title. Although the title did denote membership in the city’s property-owning classes, it failed to distinguish between bourgeois and aristocratic property holders. Although the title was commonly used by the aristocracy residing in the city, it was sometimes also used instead of the term rentier by bourgeois who earned their incomes through the profits of their property holdings. In 1830 merchants and professionals accounted for the vast majority of the Toulousain bourgeoisie, 35.5% and 36.4% respectively. High-level military, police and government officials accounted for 13.6% of this class, while rentiers, financiers, and industrialists were a relatively small part of the local bourgeoisie (see Table 2). The most dramatic change in the composition of the local bourgeoisie between 1830 and 1872 was a sharp increase in the percentage of property owners who listed their occupations as rentiers. By 1872 rentiers constituted 39.9% of the

28

■

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

bourgeoisie, while professionals composed 26%, men of commerce 22%, and administrators 6.9%. Industrialists and financiers remained a relatively small part of the local bourgeoisie by 1872, accounting for only 5.2% of this class. The increase in the percentage of rentiers was accompanied by a decrease in the percentage of individuals who listed their occupations as proprietaires, from 9.6% of the labor force in 1830 to 4.9% in 1872. These changes are most likely the result of the growing importance of liquid as opposed to landed capital as the source of wealth of the city’s property owners. The Petty Bourgeoisie The “petty bourgeoisie” category in Table 2 includes those who owned a small-scale enterprise and employed a very small number of persons. The petty bourgeoisie were also divided into class fractions based upon the type of capital owned. This social class included shopkeepers engaged in commerce as well as independent small-scale producers of commod­ ities, both of whom typically operated small businesses with limited capital. Petty bourgeois owners often worked alongside family members and typically hired a small number of employees. Master craftsmen are a difficult group to categorize, but in the present study they have been classified as petty bourgeois because they resembled small shopkeepers more closely than they did either large-scale capitalists or wage laborers. These independent producers owned and controlled the (small-scale) means of production and shared with their journeymen laborers collec­ tive control over the physical means of production. Most of them were former workers who continued to work alongside the journeymen and apprentices they employed. Although they typically hired several journeymen or apprentices, they did not employ sufficient numbers of workers to accumulate large amounts of capital. The petty bourgeoisie was almost evenly divided between shopkeepers and small-scale producers in 1830 but the latter witnessed a decline as a percentage of this class by 1872. Petty bourgeois shopkeepers more than doubled in number from 1830 to 1872 as a result of the expanded consumer demand of a rapidly growing population, but they comprised 4.6% of the labor force in 1830 and only 4.3% in 1872. Census figures reveal that a very large proportion of the city’s petty bourgeois shopkeepers were cafe, cabaret, tavern and restaurant owners engaged in the sale of food and drink (see Table 3). The figures for petty bourgeois producers in Table 2 are only rough approximations. Since so many master artisans failed to identify themselves as masters in the censuses, an estimation procedure

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

29

based on available wealth observations was used to arrive at these fig­ ures? These figures, which are only estimates, suggest that small-scale producers declined both in absolute numbers and in terms of their per­ centage of the labor force from 1830 to 1872.

The Working Class The term working class refers to nonagricultural wage laborers who placed their labor power on the market place for purchase by an employer and did not own the means of production. A majority of the city’s labor force, 67% in 1830 and 74% in 1872, fit this description. The working class was not, however, a homogeneous group. Wage laborers were employed in very diverse work settings, ranging from small arti­ sanal workshops to large factories to domestic sweatshops and they were engaged in diverse activities in industry, commerce, transportation, and services. Differences in skills, wages, job security, and living conditions differentiated workers. The working-class category in Table 2 was divided into several subgroups based on differences among workers in skill levels and in the character of their work settings. Individuals in clerical, educational, and low-level administrative jobs were classified as mental workers because they were propertyless wage laborers, many of whom were engaged in the routine operations of an organization. School teachers were placed in this category of mental laborers because they typically exercised limited control over their pro­ duction processes, relied solely upon the wages they earned to support themselves, and were involved in the teaching of authorized knowledge in church and government-run institutions. In terms of their job tasks, employment conditions, social status, education, and job security, mental laborers stood apart from manual workers and formed a separate stratum within the working class? At a time when many manual workers were living on the margin of subsistence and faced yearly crises of seasonal unemployment, mental laborers had a job security which guaranteed them a living. Inheritance records suggest that mental laborers {employes) were a good deal wealthier than skilled or unskilled manual workers. The 1830 manuscript census sample also reveals that although a sizable por­ tion of mental laborers (26%) were living in poverty, the majority were either wealthy (50%) or moderately well-off (24%)?“ Although many clerks listed their occupations without identifying where they were employed, the census figures in Table 3 do reveal that a sizable propor­ tion of the city’s mental laborers were employed by the public sector, as government clerks and schoolteachers.

1

30

-

■

j

!

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

Artisans other than masters were also included in the working-class category. Artisans composed the vast majority of the city’s industrial workers, with putting-out and factory industry employing a much smaller proportion of the city’s working class (see Table 2). Most of the city’s artisans were engaged in the production of subsistence goods, with food, housing, and clothing production employing 72% of local artisans in 1830 and 70% in 1872 (see Table 3). Artisans differed from other workers in that they exercised collective control over both their labor processes and over entry into their trades. Artisans were also better paid, more literate, better organized, and more politicized than the rest of the working class. The artisan category in Tables 2 and 3 includes artisans in handicrafts as well as those in factories. Factory workers were not a homogeneous group during this period, but a highly diversified group with different skill levels, wages, and social organization. The local Talabot scythe factory, for example, employed highly skilled platinum platers, who had long-term contracts, high wages, averaging 10 francs per day during the 1860s, and a tight monopoly over the practice of their trade. The same factory also employed less skilled finishers and engravers who were paid by the piece and earned an average of only 2.5 francs per day.51 Artisans in factories were usually relatively well-paid and much closer in numer­ ous ways to artisans in handicrafts than they were to nonartisanal factory workers. Factory workers who were not artisans were engaged in the local production of a wide variety of different goods, with the textile and tobacco industries employing the largest number of these workers in 1872. These factory workers accounted for a small but growing percen­ tage of the working class (see Table 2). Domestic putting-out production, like factory production, employed many women and children at very low wages. Though concentrated in the city’s two largest consumer goods industries, garment-making and shoemaking, sweated production employed approximately 8.4% of the working class in 1830 and 6.9% in 1872. A large proportion of the city’s unskilled and semiskilled workers were engaged not in the production of goods but in the sale of goods and in the provision of services. The city’s working class included large numbers of single female domestic servants catering to the personal needs of the local bourgeoisie and aristocracy as well as a large number of sales and service workers, mostly women, engaged in street vending, ironing, laundering, and cleaning (see Tables 2 and 3). Although street vendors were self-employed, they were classified as service workers since they did not own capital or employ others. They differed from petty bourgeois

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

31

shopkeepers in their conditions of work, their standards of living, and their demographic composition. Whereas most petty bourgeois shop­ keepers operated male-headed, family-run enterprises, with males con­ stituting 65% of this group in 1830 and 59% in 1872, the vendors were primarily women, who constituted 74% of this group in 1830 and 72% in 1872. Most of these women were seeking to supplement their husbands’ or parents’ subsistence level incomes with their meager earnings and a thin line often separated them from the ranks of the poorest workers. The city’s unskilled male service workers and transport workers were poorly paid laborers who lived on the margin of subsistence. According to local police, many of them were actually beggars and vagrants. A police commissioner’s report of June 1866 noted that most of them were recent rural migrants who were “for the most part vagrants, seeking any means of subsistence, sometimes ex-criminals”.32 The police com­ missioner recommended to the prefect that those claiming to exercise the occupations of dockers, haulers, hotel touts, and boot cleaners be placed under close police surveillance and that their activities be licensed. Unskilled day laborers, many of whom were employed in local construction and public works projects, constituted a sizable percentage of the city’s working class. These workers, who were very poorly paid and subject to seasonal as well as long-term unemployment, accounted for 15.1% of the working class in 1830 and 17.5% in 1872. The figures from the manuscript census samples in Table 2 reveal that the city’s working class nearly tripled in size during the period from 1830 to 1872 and that workers constituted a growing percentage of the local labor force. The most dramatic changes in the composition of the city’s working class during this period involved domestic servants and factory workers. Domestic servants decreased from 19.5% to 10.4% of the city’s working class while factory workers increased from 4.1% to 11.3% of the city’s working class. The former change was a result of a decline in the proportion of the population who employed domestic servants while the latter was the result of the development of local factory industry.

The Growth of Capitalist Production in Toulouse Despite the continued predominance of local handicraft production, capitalist factory and urban putting-out production did develop in Toulouse during the middle decades of the nineteenth century. An 1832 industrial survey of the city numbers factory workers at 1,758, while the 1851 census lists their number at 2,344,33 indicating a growth but not a very rapid one of employment in local factories during the July

32

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

Monarchy and Second Republic. The 1832 industrial survey lists only nine industries that had an average of more than 20 workers per firm and these industries employed only 1,070 workers, or approximately 4% of the labor force? An April 1840 survey of local industry contained in­ structions requesting an enumeration of “all establishments which by their nature, size, or the value of their products are not in the arts et metiers category and belong to manufacturing industry” and which “regularly employ at least twenty workers.” ” Among the twenty-three establishments listed in this survey were four cotton spinning factories, a cotton cloth, printed cloth, cotton dying, and woolen blanket factory, two foundries, two machine construction factories, two scythe and file fac­ tories, three grain mills, and a food oil, starch, wallpaper, paper, candle, and leather factory. These twenty-three large-scale establishments employed 1,483 workers among whom were 248 women and 243 children under the age of sixteen. The two largest factories listed in the 1840 survey were the Olin Chatelet foundry, which had ten blast furnaces and employed 242 workers under one roof, and the Josserand textile factory, which employed 205 workers. Almost all of the factories listed in the 1840 survey were operated with the capital of individuals, family members, or a few business partners. Nineteen of the twenty-three factories were individually own­ ed; only two, a paper factory and machine construction factory, were partnerships, and the remaining two, the Basacle and Chateau grain mills, were owned by shareholders (actionnaires)* These early factories differed from handicraft production in terms of their organization of the production process and scale of production rather than in terms of their basic methods or instruments of production. They required minimal fixed capital and a relatively primitive technology that utilized water rather than steam power. Local factories located along the Garonne river and Canal du Midi which provided them with hydraulic power. In 1840 only three of the city’s factories used steam power. There was a twenty­ horsepower engine at the Chatelet foundry, a twelve-horsepower engine at the Paul et Cardaillac paper factory, and a four-horsepower engine at the Bemady candle factory.” A more rapid growth of local factory production occurred during the Second Empire (1851-1870). The number of workers in factory industry increased from 2,344, or approximately 5% of the labor force in 1851, to 6,003, or approximately 9.2% of the labor force in 1865. A survey of local factory industry published by Edmond de Planet in 1865 lists 74 indus­ tries composed of 797 establishments employing 8,587 workers as well as 4 government-owned enterprises which employed 1,434 workers.38 A

I I

! *

!

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

33

municipal survey of local factory industry dated April 1865 lists only 47 industries, 134 firms, and 4,508 workers and does not include the government-owned enterprises.” The mayor, in a series of reports to the prefect cited the number of factory workers in the city at 4,933 in 1865, 4,385 in 1866, and 4,615 in 1868.40 The statistics in de Planet’s survey include a number of small-scale factories as well as government-owned factories. If only those industries listed in this survey that had an average of more than 20 workers per firm are counted, the number of local factory workers is very close to the numbers reported in the other surveys, 4,569 workers employed in private enterprises and 1,434 employed in state-owned factories, for a total of 6,003 factory workers. The 24 industries in this survey with an average of more than 20 workers per firm included 101 enterprises producing a much wider variety of goods than in 1840. In addition to the state-owned factories which produced canons, tobacco, artillery, and gunpowder, there were largescale factories producing cotton thread, cotton prints, silk cloth, knitted goods, hardware, machinery, founded metal, rolled steel, rolled copper, scythes, paper, cardboard, wallpaper, down blankets, shoes, straw hats, bellows, vegetable horsehair, wooden building materials, and carriages. A comparison of the 1840 and 1865 surveys reveals a fourfold increase in the number of large-scale factories in Toulouse and in the number of workers employed in these establishments. The middle decades of the nineteenth century also witnessed the growth of local capitalist sweated production in the city’s two largest consumer goods industries, garment-making and shoemaking. During the 1830s and 1840s, locally produced, ready-made, standardized consumer goods began to challenge the custom-made clothes and shoes of small artisanal workshops. Local shoe factories served as centers of organization for the cutting of leather, distribution of leather pieces, and collection of finished products. In 1858 the local ready-made shoe in­ dustry (chaussures de confection) yielded annually an estimated one million francs in output and the Toulouse Chamber of Commerce noted in 1858 that “incessant activity reigns in the Toulousain factories engaged in the ready-made production [of shoes] and among the homeworkers [ouvriers en chambre] who supply them.”41 The 1865 de Planet survey lists three shoe factories employing three hundred workers. Manuscript census data for 1830 and 1872 also reveal the growth of sweated pro­ duction in the shoe and garment industries. In 1830 only 4% of the shoe workers listed in the census sample were female and all workers in the local shoe industry listed their occupations simply as shoemakers, cob­ blers, or bootmakers. By 1872, 20% of the local shoe industry’s labor force

34

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

was female and 21% of all shoe workers listed occupational titles that implied participation in urban putting-out, or sweated, production (e.g., shoe stitcher, boot stitcher, shoe edger) while 79% listed their occupations as shoemakers, cobblers, and bootmakers. In the garment industry, sweated production appears to have made earlier and larger inroads. In 1830, 75% of all garment workers were women and 69% listed occu­ pational titles that revealed an advanced division of labor characteristic of urban putting-out industry (e.g., garment cutter, seamstress, stitcher) while only 31% listed the artisanal title of tailor. By 1872, 89% of the city’s garment makers were female and 67% listed occupational titles suggest­ ing that they were engaged in sweated production.

!

i i

Artisans and Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

\

1 ■

The development of capitalist industry had an important impact not only upon the growing number of workers who found jobs as unskilled and semiskilled laborers in Toulouse’s local factories, but upon the city’s artisanal population as well. Some artisans found work in the local fac­ tories and sweatshops. It is very difficult to precisely calculate the number of artisans employed in local factories, since industrial surveys do not provide this information, but one can arrive at a rough estimate on the basis of existing archival sources. In 1840 all of the local artisans employed in Toulouse’s factories were skilled metal workers. Only six of the twenty-three factories listed in the 1840 industrial survey employed artisanal labor, with the other seventeen factories relying exclusively upon semiskilled and unskilled operatives. These factory artisans worked in two machine shops that produced steam engines and hydraulic wheels, two foundries, and two scythe and file factories. These six factories employed 48% of the city’s factory labor force in 1840. Their labor force consisted of 631 men, most of whom were artisans, 36 women, and 51 children.42 The 1865 industrial survey lists a greater number of local industries and factories that employed primarily artisanal labor. The two 1865 surveys list thirteen different industries with an average of ten or more workers per firm that were composed of factories employing mostly skilled workers. The de Planet survey includes fifteen foundries, a canon foundry, seventeen print shops, ten machine shops, two building joining factories, one scythe factory, one hardware factory, thirty-five carriage factories, and thirty hat factories,41 while the municipal survey includes five cabinet factories, two file factories, four marble cutting factories, and

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

35

a bread factory that are not listed in the de Planet survey." These 124 factories employed 3,619 workers, most of whom were artisans. By 1865 artisans working in a number of different trades had entered into local factories to work under conditions that were qualitatively dif­ ferent from those of small-scale handicraft production. The joiners, printers, carriage makers, metalsmiths, machine builders, hatmakers, cabinetmakers, marble masons, and bakers who found work in these early Toulousain manufactures did not readily accept the factory disci­ pline that their employers tried to impose upon them. Local factory owners complained about their skilled workers’ struggle for control over the workplace as a hindrance to the productive capacities of their en­ terprises. Charles Batiste employed one hundred Toulousain workers in his woodworking factory (usine de menuiserie de bailment) in 1871. He reported to the government commission investigating the revolutionary commune of 1871 that the twenty unskilled workers (hommes de peine) he employed were “obedient, docile, and assiduous” workers. He charac­ terized the eighty skilled building joiners he employed in his factory as “insubordinate, difficult to direct, animated by a great spirit of in­ dependence, and desirous of an almost total absence of control.”45 Artisans who remained in local handicrafts rather than move into the factories were also affected by the growth of manufactures, as competition from capitalist industry threatened producers in small han­ dicraft shops. This competition from local as well as national and in­ ternational capitalist industry affected a variety of different artisanal trades during the middle decades of the century. During the July Monarchy and Second Republic northern and foreign factories rather than local ones provided most of the competition. In 1840 very few of the city’s factories produced goods that competed with local handicrafts. Only the Bonnet foundry’s clocks, balconies, and sinks, the Dessoye and Talabot factories’ fries, and the Darrieu factory’s leather competed with small-scale producers, while eight cotton and woolen textile factories and three grain mills produced goods that competed with small-scale rural regional production. Northern and foreign production of ready-made clothes, shoes, and hats did, however, compete with the products of local artisanal workshops during the July Monarchy. In 1832 hats from Lyon and --- Paris were cited by local officials as the cause of the local hat in­ dustry’s malaise.44 During the latter years of the July Monarchy, this competition also affected local artisanal producers of furniture, shoes, clothing, and carriages. In 1848 republican city councilman E. Laujoulet argued that northern factory industry was largely responsible for the widespread unemployment plaguing Toulouse. He suggested that ful-

4

.lull

36

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

fillment of the new republican government’s pledge to provide full employment would necessitate restrictions on the influx of northern in­ dustrial goods. “Perhaps it would be advisable”, he wrote, “in order to defend local industry against Parisian competition, which is now so dangerous because of its superabundant and low-priced products, to provisionally impose an import tax upon all luxury goods, including furniture, carriages, etc.... This tax should equally apply to all ready­ made articles (clothing, clothing accessories, millinery, shoes, etc.) ... The local importation of these diverse articles, which has increased greatly over the past few years, is destroying, to the benefit of outside capitalists and workers, a large group of workers (tailors, milliners, lingerie workers, etc.) who have a right to be guaranteed work by the city....”4’ During the Second Empire, local handicraft industry faced competition not only from the products of northern and foreign capitalist industry but from local manufactures as well. The de Planet survey of 1865 reveals that although most of the city’s factories were producing goods like tobacco, machinery, cotton prints, paper, and gas, which did not compete with handicrafts, local factories did turn out a large number of different goods that competed with the products of small handicraft shops. By 1865 factory production had gained a foothold in a variety of local industries, including hatmaking, cabinetmaking, printing, baking, carriage making, marble masonry, and construction joining, in which production had been exclusively handicraft in character in 1830. Although production within most of these industries still remained pre­ dominantly handicraft, by 1865 local factories utilizing greater concen­ trations of capital and a more advanced division of labor were producing low-priced goods that competed with the output of smaller handicraft shops. Competition from capitalist factory industry also affected rural artisans in the region surrounding Toulouse. In the metal industry the growth of factories meant the decline of small-scale rural production. Large-scale blast furnaces in factories at Pamiers, Tarascon, and Toulouse replaced the small artisanal ironworks (forges catalanes) scat­ tered throughout the Ariege countryside and mountains south of Toulouse.41 The small rural artisanal forges, which were powered by charcoal and water power, could not compete with these large-scale, coal-powered, urban smelting works. The last artisanal furnaces in the Ariege disappeared during the 1870s after twenty years of decline.49 Grain milling also became more urbanized and small-scale rural wind and water mills slowly disappeared from the region. The small tanneries

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

37

of the Pyrenees also disappeared, unable to compete with cheaper factory produced leather. Competition from northern and foreign factory industry affected not only artisans in local handicraft production but those employed in local factories as well. Because of the international scope of their markets, local factories faced stiff competition from foreign producers. The local metal, earthenware, and glass industries, all of which employed mainly artisanal labor, faced serious competition from northern and foreign factories because the city was not located close to any major coal or iron fields which could provide local factories with cheap raw materials. The nearest coal mine to Toulouse was at Carmaux, ninety kilometers away. This mine produced only 1.12% of French coal at mid-century and transport costs for coal shipments were high. Local metal, earthenware, and glass factories, all of which consumed large amounts of energy, suffered most from the absence of a cheap nearby source of coal. It was in search of cheaper energy sources that these factory industries grad­ ually abandonned Toulouse. In 1850 The Foque et Amoux earthenware factory moved to Valentine, where cheaper wood was readily accessible. The scythe factory at Basacle, which had produced one-third of all French scythes in 1828, closed down in 1865 after the Talabot company decided to move its metal production to Saint-Judry, which was closer to the coal mines of Carmaux. The company’s inability to acquire adequate supplies of coal was an old problem, noted in the 1840 survey of local manufacturing industry.50 In 1866 the state-owned canon foundry closed down and in September 1869 the Dubois foundry went out of business. During the 1860s the Olin foundry as well as the city’s two other foundries also closed down. By the end of the Second Empire, little was left of what was once an important local metal industry. Only the Yarz hardware factory and several small artisanal firms producing cutlery and hardware for local and regional consumption remained in business. In 1865 local officials attributed the problems of the city’s metal factories to foreign competition and low tariffs, cited outside competition as the cause of the local glass industry’s troubles, and blamed the influx of Parisian machines for the crisis of the local machine construction in­ dustry.51 Many local handicraft producers, faced with competition from new capitalist forms of industrial production, either went out of business or enlarged the scale of their operations and altered the character of their work settings. During periods of economic crisis, when low-priced sweated and factory goods flooded the market, many small producers were driven out of business. Local bankruptcy records reveal that it was

38

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

handicraft industry which suffered greatest during periods of economic crisis. There were 214 bankruptcies in Toulouse during the period from 1844 to 1848 and 148 bankruptcies from 1856 to 1865. Small retailers of food and clothing and small artisanal producers of consumer goods were the major victims of these bankruptcies.” Many of those handicraft producers who managed to remain in busi­ ness were forced to alter the scale of their production or intensify the division of labor in order to remain competitive. Local industrial surveys suggest such a transformation of production conditions in several arti­ sanal trades. Both the 1859 and the 1868 surveys of local manufactures list a number of industries employing artisanal labor which had an average of fewer than ten workers per firm. Although these surveys fail to specify the criteria that were used to qualify an enterprise as belonging to the category of “manufactures,” the inclusion of small-scale firms within the surveys suggests that factory conditions, perhaps an intensified div­ ision of labor or the absence of an employer working alongside his workers, provided the defining characteristic shared by all of the firms listed. The 1859 report lists eight breweries with a total of forty-eight workers, five tanneries employing twenty-four workers, five barrelmak­ ing establishments employing twelve workers, eighteen harness esta­ blishments employing twenty-six workers, ten wheel shops employing sixteen workers, and eight metal shops with twenty-two workers. The 1865 de Planet survey includes 588 firms in forty-one industries that had an average of fewer than ten workers per firm. A number of these small-scale firms employed artisanal labor, including jewellers, brewers, tinsmiths, nailsmiths, silversmiths, porcelain workers, printers, black­ smiths, stonecutters, leather workers, potters, bookbinders, tanners, wooden shoemakers, and woodturners. These firms are listed as manufactures, however, not as handicrafts, which suggests the transfor­ mation of a number of local handicraft firms into small-scale, capitalist, quasi-handicraft units of production. Local directories also suggest that the city’s garment industry ex­ perienced a transformation of handicraft production as well as the growth of large-scale capitalist production during the middle decades of the century.” In the listings of the city directories of 1840 and 1872 there are three different types of tailors listed: 1) small-scale master artisans (tailleurs a la fat^on), shop owners with little capital who typically produced custom-made clothing out of cloth provided to them by their customers; 2) artisanal tailors (marchands tailleurs) who had larger capital investments, including stocks of cloth which they usually bought in volume from suppliers on credit; and 3) large-scale capitalist produc-

-!

]

i

!

i

■

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

39

ers of ready-made clothing (maisons de confection). The 1840 listing of Toulouse’s tailoring enterprises included forty-four small-scale master artisans, thirty-three larger-scale artisanal tailors, and eighteen esta­ blishments producing ready-made clothing, for a total of ninety-five listings. In the 1872 directory, there were listings for forty-nine small tailors, ninety larger artisanal tailors, and twenty-seven ready-made producers. Small-scale custom-made tailoring had dropped from 46% to 30% of all local enterprises while larger-scale artisanal tailoring and capitalist ready-made production had grown to include a larger percen­ tage of local firms. Available evidence from other sources suggests that small-scale han­ dicraft production continued to exist in most artisanal trades as late as 1870, but that these small handicraft shops increasingly coexisted alongside large-scale quasi-handicraft shops owned by artisanal masters who had enlarged the scale of their operations, as well as alongside large-scale factories. A municipal commission report on the city’s baking industry in March of 1848 noted that there were a large number of master bakers who hired only one worker.* Out of the 250 baking employers in the city, only 20 had three ovens while only 11 had more than three ovens. The other 219 employers, stated the report, “work alongside those they employ and employ only one or two workers.” A similar situation of the coexistence of large and small-scale enterprises existed in the cabinetmaking industry in 1869, where only 38 of the city’s 100 masters regularly employed workers but 6 employers hired 118 of the city’s 343 workers.55 A division between large and small masters also existed in the local leather and carriage industries. Whereas the master tawers Lafitte and Mallet employed fifteen and eighteen workers respectively in 1868, two other masters had only five workers and one master employed only one worker.56 In 1854 a meeting of the city’s fifteen master carriagesmiths (maitres forgerons en voitures) was broken up by police.5’ The fifteen masters who were arrested had gathered to discuss ways to deal collec­ tively with the carriage entrepreneurs (maitres-carrossiers) who had recently lowered the prices they paid for carriage metalwork. Master carriage smiths organized in opposition to the larger-scale masters in their industry who were becoming capitalist entrepreneurs. Some master carriage smiths went on to become capitalist employers themselves. In 1868 a master carriage-smith named Masuas reported to police inves­ tigating a strike that he employed thirty workers, including fifteen smiths and twelve to fifteen joiners, wheelwrights, painters, and saddlers.58 This scattered evidence from a variety of different trades suggests that a

40

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

number of masters responded to the threat posed by the development of capitalist factory and sweated industry by expanding the scale of their production so as to be better able to compete with these newer forms of industry. Local artisanal workers were threatened not only by a deterioration of working conditions, but by the poverty that was such a persistent feature of working-class life. Available evidence suggests that many, perhaps most, of Toulouse’s artisans experienced poverty and material depri­ vation during the course of their lifetimes. Skilled workers were not immune from the short-term economic crises which punctuated the middle decades of the nineteenth century, driving many working class families into poverty. In an era when food purchases constituted an es­ timated 50% to 65% of an average working-class family’s total budget and when approximately 65% to 70% of food expenses went toward buying bread,” fluctuations in the price of bread threatened destitution and hunger. Local bread prices experienced sudden fluctuations, rapidly in­ creasing in 1846-47 and again in 1853-54. Bread prices rose from 40 centimes per kilo in August 1846 to 57.5 centimes per kilo in March 1847, a 44% increase. During the winter of 1853-54, when bread prices again rose sharply, the Procureur Imperial warned his superiors in Paris that “urban workers grow poorer due to high bread prices. ... A new and too sharp rise in the price of bread would be both disastrous for the popu­ lation and dangerous for public order....”60 Local administrative and inheritance records also document the exis­ tence of widespread poverty during the middle decades of the century. These records show that a growing percentage of Toulousains, possessing only the barest necessities, left behind no will. The percentage of those leaving no inheritance increased from 42.5% in 1826 to 57.9% in 1868?' During the economic crisis of 1847, when nearly 20% of the city’s entire population received poor relief, the mayor of Toulouse estimated that 6,000 of the city’s indigents were artisans.62 Prison records for the year 1847 reveal that the largest single crime for which people were imprisoned in Toulouse was begging.61 Periodic economic crises produced widespread local unemployment, which further reinforced employers’ power to lower wages, fire dis­ obedient workers, and hire apprentices to do work normally done by journeymen artisans. The growth of semiskilled and unskilled jobs in industry as well as the rapid expansion of the labor force by rural-urban migration forced down wages and increased the number of workers competing for industrial jobs. Poverty also forced down wages, compel­ ling workers to take whatever jobs they could find at whatever wages

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

41

employers were willing to pay. In March 1848 the Toulouse city council commission investigating conditions in the local baking industry observed: “In all branches of industry and commerce, poverty invincibly forces workers to offer their labor at a lower price, either by working for less wages or by working more for the same wages. Everywhere, under the influence of necessity, the exploitation of workers by employers is taking place, without premeditation or planning and as a fatal con­ sequence of our social and political organization...“ The economic hardships facing Toulousain artisans were not limited to periodic economic crises nor to the longer-term general crisis of handi­ craft industry; they were a regular occurrence, typically following a seasonal pattern, intensifying during the winter months. At the same time that the local nobility returned from their countryside estates to live in the comfort of their urban mansions, the city’s workers faced another winter of despair, another struggle to fight off the cold and hunger that typically accompanied the time of year known as the “dead season” (la morte saisori). “During the winter,” noted the prefect in March 1858, “the working-class population always experiences a slowdown in work. The clothing and construction industries come to a halt until the return of good weather....”65 Police reports on seasonal unemployment in dif­ ferent trades for 1850 and 1858 reveal that artisans in handicraft in­ dustry, especially those in the building trades, were the main victims, while workers in factories were much less affected*

Commercial Capital and Industrial Capitalist Development Industrial capitalist development affected not only Toulouse’s artisans; it also had very important consequences for the city’s financial and commercial activities and for local commercial capitalists who, like the city’s artisans, were threatened by the emergence of industrial capitalism. Although Toulouse’s commercial bourgeoisie remained the wealthiest and most powerful fraction of the local bourgeoisie during the middle decades of the nineteenth century, they faced a growing challenge to their wealth and power from the internationalization of the grain trade that accompanied French industrial capitalist development, from the development of a railway system controlled by northern finance capital, and from the emergence of a national banking and stock exchange system of capital allocation that made it difficult for them to secure credit to finance their business transactions. The grain trade, an important part of the city’s economy, was adversely affected by state policies which favored northern factory industry to the

p

! 42

j

i I i

[

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

detriment of southern agriculture. Tariff policies were enacted during the Second Empire that ensured a cheap food supply for the industrial labor force by lowering import duties on foreign grains. Expanded grain imports meant that poor grain harvests in the Garonne valley, or in France, no longer automatically resulted in higher prices and high profits for local landowners and merchants. The influx of foreign grains and unification of the national market by railroads led to low grain prices in 1858-59 and 1864-65. Prices dropped from 32.16 francs in 1856 to 17.30 francs in 1859, then rose to 24.12 francs in 1862 before dropping again to 16.45 francs in 1865.67 Even the poor regional harvest of 1865 did not raise prices, which were set by the national and international market. Fluctuating grain prices made investments in land and commerce risky and interest rates high and it also limited profits from the regional agri­ cultural surplus upon which the wealth of so many Toulousains was based. Those Toulousain aristocrats who had their fortunes invested in the land of the Garonne valley suffered the consequences of the Imperial state’s free trade policies, as did local wholesale merchants engaged in the grain trade. Toulouse’s commercial capitalists also suffered from higher regional transport costs, caused by the advent of the railroad in 1856. The railroad company, La Compagnie des Chemins de Fer de Midi, which was owned by the northern banking empire of the Pereire brothers, purchased con­ trol over the Canal du Midi during the 1850s. A law of 8 July 1852 gave the railroad company ownership of the canal and an Imperial decree of 21 June 1858 granted the company the right to set transport rates on the canal. The company used its monopoly over transportation to eliminate competition from the waterway and force traffic onto the railway. Canal transport fees were increased to a rate 66% to 88% higher than shipping rates on state-owned canals, which made them nearly as expensive as rates on the faster and more dependable railroads.68 The company also imposed inequitable railroad shipping rates that hurt Toulousain commerce, making the shipment of a hectoliter of grain from Marseille to Toulouse as expensive as the same shipment from Marseille to Bor­ deaux.69 Differential rail rates also applied to the volume of shipments and they favored large producers at the expense of small producers. “Differential rates,” writes Jeanne Gaillard, “operated solely for the benefit of big producers [while] middling and small enterprises could only stand aside in anger against a system which operated against them. Many at that time suddenly faced the fact that the era of boutiquiers had ended.”70 The decline of commerce on the Garonne river and Canal du Midi and the growth of rail transport during the Second Empire also

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

43

adversely affected local dockers, carters, and barge operators as well as artisanal wheelwrights, carriage makers, and blacksmiths, whose liveli­ hoods depended upon less modem forms of transportation and who suffered from the transportation monopoly’s attack upon commerce on the city’s waterways. Local commercial capitalists were also adversely affected by the development of a centralized nation-wide banking and stock exchange system of capital allocation in France. During the middle decades of the nineteenth century, Parisian banks, with their increasing number of branches in the provinces, gradually gained nation-wide control over the circulation of capital and its flow into various regions of France and sectors of the economy. The economic crisis of 1846-1848 wiped out numerous small-scale money lenders in Toulouse and in the wake of the crisis, over the opposition of local bankers, the Bank of Toulouse became a branch of the Bank of France.71 Parisian banks also established branches of their central offices throughout the provinces during the Second Empire. In 1853 a branch of the Credit Fonder opened in Toulouse and in 1867 the Societe Generate established a Toulousain branch. These large-scale, nationwide savings banks edged out smaller local competitors and moneylenders by offering lower interest rates on more flexible terms to a wider clientele. This centralization of banking activities fostered regional economic inequalities as increasing concen­ trations of capital flowed into northern factory industry. The banking houses and groups of wealthy northern financiers who played such a large role in French industrial capital formation focused their invest­ ments on safer and more profitable limited liability companies (societes anonymes), few of which existed in the southwest of France. The Bank of France, and its provincial branches, financed large-scale enterprises, with smaller firms relying upon private sources of credit (caisses d’escompte, caisses de comptes courants) for short-term loans. During the middle decades of the nineteenth century, Toulousain commercial capitalists repeatedly complained about the difficulties they faced in securing credit to finance their business activities. In August 1836 the city’s Chamber of Commerce reported that “the locality of Toulouse, lacking capital, is in a most deplorable situation. The scarcity is such that all business is paralyzed, payments of debt are impossible, numerous bankruptcies have been declared, and the most well-esta­ blished businesses cannot negotiate credit ... Deprived of the industrial resources of northern cities, Toulouse does not have the means to attract capital.”72 In a letter to the Minister of Commerce and Public Works, the Chamber suggested that the central state deal with the city’s economic

44

1

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

problems by “placing some obstacles in the way of this ruinous emigration of capital or by reducing the flow of tax revenues to Paris. ... France is not in Paris,” exclaimed the angry letterwriters.73 The prefect soon appeared at a Chamber of Commerce meeting to explain that “the government has no right to interfere with the natural, and undoubtedly profitable, movement [of capital], ... To complain about the movement of capital attracted by commerce with surrounding areas,” he argued, “is to reveal that the Chamber of Commerce is making claims for the city’s role not as a center of commerce but as a center of banking . . . Will not exported capital provide benefits elsewhere, and is it not the same blind spirit of locality that is behind this complaint?”74 Complaints about the availability of capital and credit continued during the 1850s and 1860s, as control over the allocation of capital became increasingly dominated by the industrial and financial elite of the north. According to the prefectoral reports of the 1860s, local commercial capitalists experienced great difficulty obtaining credit. In December 1865 the prefect reported that local textile merchants faced “growing competition which often, as a result of insufficient capital, leads to bankruptcies. ... The bankers,” he added in the same report, “do not readily assist [local] merchants, especially the smaller ones, and there is no established interest rate in the financing of commercial trans­ actions. They do not extend unsecured credit and demand such un­ secured credit more readily than they extend it.”75 High interest rates and difficult access to credit were accompanied by the increasing flight of capital, as the financial speculation of the stock exchange drained large quantities of capital away from Toulouse. Prior to 1830 the French stock exchange had few securities listed other than French and foreign government bonds. It expanded its listings during the July Monarchy and Second Empire to include numerous public utilities, bridges, canals, railroads and northern mining and factory indus­ tries. Stock market speculation centered around European central state bonds and foreign and northern industrial investments, not around Toulousain commerce and industry. In October 1859 Toulouse’s Chamber of Commerce cited as one of the major causes of the industrial and commercial crises facing the city, “the flight of capital, which in­ creasingly flows toward the rapid, but often very disappointing, specu­ lation of the stock exchange. Long-term investments that immobilize capital, which are necessary for agricultural and industrial development and commercial transactions, do not satisfy quickly enough the desire to get rich; money flows toward speculation ... A mass of liquid capital has left our our city in a short period of time for other areas .. . These losses

Industrial Capitalist Development in Toulouse

45

are painful, and agriculture, industry, and commerce have felt the in­ evitable repercussions.”74 The opening of a local stock exchange (bourse des valeurs) in 1856 generated intense financial speculation, which only further aggravated Toulouse’s financial difficulties by drawing more money away from local commerce and industry. According to a Bank of France report on Toulouse dated 2 June 1860: “The idleness of the bourgeoisie has led them to the stock exchange during the past few years, and some of them, rather than wisely purchasing stock, have taken to gambling. . . . The city soon lost 25 million francs.. ..”77 After the drop in stock prices which followed the French colonial debacle and troop withdrawal from Mexico in 1867, the Procureur Imperial observed, in April 1867, that “it is in the millions that one must estimate the cost to the city of the decree establishing a stock exchange.”78 The distinctive features of the political economy and class structure of Toulouse outlined in this chapter had very important consequences for the development of political conflicts in this capital of the southwest of France. These features included an industrial working class dominated by artisans who were either experiencing or being threatened by the proletarianization that accompanied the growth of new capitalist forms of industrial production and by the crisis and transformation of handi­ crafts. The city was also characterized by a small and weak financial and industrial bourgeoisie, a powerful commercial bourgeoisie threatened by the development of early industrial capitalism, a large group of bourgeois professionals employed by the legal system, and a wealthy but declining aristocracy. The following chapters explore the political implications of each of these features of the local economy, by analyzing the decline of popular royalism (Chapter 3), the emergence of a new artisan-dominated culture of resistance (Chapter 4), the local political failure of Orleanism and the success of a republican-legitimist electoral alliance (Chapter 5), and the emergence and development of working-class republican socialism (Chapters 5-8).

Bi I ■


o or-

? -

iW

oooooo — o— o»

ilill 5

=- -J

■d

—R

ft j ii *■• b u -I

- 7 x 4 ?; XI ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° “ 01 — ° ° c ° r'1 “ “ ° 3

Sh 5 Mil o

000000^0*'* ££ 1

______________ OOrMC— Or^O^

O-

|’

oooo — oco----- ooo------- xr — coo

"II

xil OOOO —0000 — 0000 —O — OO

r

■^1

il i Isliiiimi h i U

I§

180

I

h

H! I

" I

Republican Parly, State Power, and the Working Class

181

Monarchy, was the presence of a substantial number of journalists and “men of letters.” Overall the city’s bourgeoisie accounted for 27% of those identified by occupation as club members, 34% of those identified by occupation as active in local republican associations, but only 19% of those identified by occupation as members of secret societies and only 21% of those identified by occupation as active in the distribution of republican propaganda. These figures suggest that the repression which followed the June days and drove republican activities underground reduced the role of bourgeois leaders, some of whom were unwilling to engage in the illegal activities of republican politics. Bourgeois repub­ lican militants did, however, retain an important role in the publication of local republican and republican socialist newspapers, accounting for 40% of those identified by occupation as active in the publication of Emancipation and 52% of those identified as active in the publication of the socialist newspapers Civilisation, Le Constituent Democratique, and La Reformateur. The city’s petty bourgeois shopkeepers and master craftsmen provided 17% of the militants identified by occupation in police surveillance records. Petty bourgeois militants account for 26% of those identified by occupation in police dossiers as active in secret societies, 22% of those identified as distributors of republican propaganda, and 19% of those identified as active member of local republican associations. Although also accounting for a sizable proportion (27%) of those identified as active in the publication and distribution of Emancipation, petty bourgeois militants account for a smaller proportion of the club activists of 1848 (12%) and of the militants engaged in the publication of the city’s socialist newspapers (7%). Cafe, tavern, and cabaret owners accounted for 32% of all petty bourgeois militants while shopkeepers and grocers accounted for an additional 27%. Most of these militants were targets of police surveillance because the small shops, taverns, cabarets, or cafis they owned served either as gathering places for local republicans, as meeting places for secret societies, or as centers for the distribution of republican propaganda. Whereas very few master artisans were iden­ tified as republican militants by police surveillance records of the July Monarchy, the police dossiers of the Second Republic reveal that many small artisanal employers came to play an important role in local repub­ lican politics during the Second Republic, especially after June 1849. Most master artisan militants came from trades which were witnessing the incursion of sweated production (e.g. tailoring and shoemaking) or the growth of manufacturers (e.g. hatmaking, metalworking, machine building, joining) or from construction trades (e.g. masonry, stonecutting.

182

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

carpentry, locksmithing). Small master artisans were mainly debtors and tenants rather than creditors and landlords and the republican socialist idea of cheap state-sponsored credit appealed to many of them. The republican socialist idea of state-guaranteed full employment also appealed to many masters, especially in trades witnessing economic crisis and growing unemployment due to competition from capitalist produc­ tion or in trades, like those of the construction industry, which ex­ perienced seasonal as well as long-term periods of widespread un­ employment. The city’s working class provided the largest group of republican militants identified in police surveillance records of the Second Republic. Workers accounted for 58% of all militants identified by occupation, and 85% of these working-class militants were artisans. Mental workers account for only 7% of all working-class militants while nonartisanal industrial, transport, and service workers account for an additional 8%. Workers constituted the majority of those identified by occupation in police dossiers as club activists (58%), as members of secret societies (52%), and as distributors of republican propaganda (53%). They also account for a smaller but sizable proportion of those identified as members of local republican associations (43%) and of those engaged in the publication and distribution of local republican (33%) and republican socialist (38%) newspapers. Artisans dominated the ranks of working class militants engaged in these diverse political activities, and the vast majority of these artisans came from trades experiencing the incursion of sweated production or of manufactures and from the building trades (see Table 9). Although local artisanal militants were drawn from thirty-two different trades, only seven trades — joining, shoemaking, hatmaking, printing, metalworking, tailoring, and machine building, all of which were experiencing the growth of sweated or manufacturing production — account for half of all artisanal militants. Although workers, mainly artisans, provided the majority of local republican activists, efforts by republican militants to win converts to their cause were not limited to the city’s working class. Republican prop­ aganda was also directed at the peasantry of the surrounding countryside. In March 1851 Toulousain socialists began publishing a special weekly edition for those who had neither the time or money to read a daily newspaper. As part of its effort to forge a worker-peasant alliance, this weekly newspaper, Le Travailleur, frequently raised issues of concern to the peasantry, such as lower taxes, cheap credit, and cooper­ ative associations. It regularly carried agricultural information including cures for various crop diseases. The newspaper’s editors were convinced

Republican Party, State Power, and the Working Class

183

that despite the restrictive electoral law of 1850, an electoral victory was possible once enough peasants were won over to the cause of republican socialism. Le Travailleur contained articles enthusiastically describing the “fever of associationalism that is sweeping the country with electrical rapidity” and confidently assured its readers of a victory in the 1852 presidential and legislative elections.” Despite the intensified repression of 1849-51, republican socialism attracted growing support throughout France and by 1851 republican leaders, socialists as well as nonsocialists, were urging a strict adherance to the law upon their followers, renouncing the use of violence and ex­ pressing a firm belief in the triumph of their cause through electoral means.The year 1852 became a rallying cry for republicans. “We, repu­ blicans and socialists”, proclaimed the Parisian newspaper La Revolution in September 1851, “wait calmly and joyfully for 1852. The two dates 1789 and 1852 are linked and joined together... .”’* “The republican representative Joly wrote to Bernard Muld in 1851: “It is in 1852 that the struggle must open.” ” After Louis Napoleon’s coup d’etat of December 1851 destroyed the possibility of a republican electoral victory in 1852, local police at Toulouse repeatedly commented upon the thwarted hopes of republican socialists. The joiner Antoine Troy, who fled to Spain after the coup, was described as “one of those thousands of demagogues who waited impatiently for the cataclysm of 1852 to realize their bright hopes” while the shoemaker Bernard Marseillac reportedly “often ex­ pressed projects of vengeance against the rich and looked forward with satisfaction to 1852” to carry them out.*0 “Men of order trembled with the approach of 1852”, noted a local police report of that year, “but today they are reassured.”*' The growth of republican socialism and fear of a republican socialist electoral victory in 1852 had a strong negative impact upon business confidence. In 1851 as in 1848, the French bourgeoisie withheld capital investments in anticipation of another revolutionary threat to their property. In March 1851 the newspaper Emancipation noted the phenomenon: “The general crisis produced by the withdrawal of capital, out of fear of 1852, hurts all of our interests.”*2 “Important business has been adjourned until after the elections of 1852,” observed the general prosecutor in Toulouse in October 1851.*’ The Persistance of Divisions among Republicans

Despite bright electoral prospects for 1852, republicans remained sharply divided between socialists and nonsocialists. Intensifed govern­ ment repression, stimulated by the growth of republican socialism, fost-

184

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

ered several unsuccessful efforts to unite republicans. In early 1849 there was a reconciliation of the republican and republican socialist factions of the party at a national level and this reconciliation was announced in a public declaration of January 1849. This reconciliation also occured at a local level at Toulouse. In early 1849 the republican socialist newspaper Le Constituent Democratique fused with the republican newspaper Emancipation. Local republicans and republican socialists also joined forces in creating a Mountain electoral organization, the Solidarite Republican to prepare for the May 1849 legislative elections. Workers, however, maintained their own independent political organization, the Association de Travailleurs. Leaders of the Club de la rue Lapeyrouse complained that too few workers had joined the electoral organization Solidarite Republican and that many workers who had joined later resigned to join the Association des Travailleurs. They explained to working-class club members that these two organizations shared the same political principles and that one could in good conscience belong to both of them. Despite the hesitation of republican workers to collaborate with bourgeois republicans on electoral matters, and despite frequent factional disputes among club members during the next few months, member of the Club de la rue Lapeyrouse did agree upon a procedure for selecting Mountain candidates for the May legislative elections. The committee responsible for selecting candidates included fifty persons chosen by the various workers’ trade associations, fifteen persons chosen by the bourgeois and petty bourgeois-dominated Cercle de I’Union Democratique, and seventeen persons chosen by members of the liberal professions. Workers were given a majority voice in the selection of Mountain National Assembly candidates, in sharp contrast to their ex­ clusion from the process of candidate selection a year earlier. The dominance of the socialist faction of the local party within the Mountain coalition was also revealed by the leadership of the city’s largest Mountain association, the Club de la rue Lapeyrouse. Armand Duportal, a socialist journalist, and Jacques Lucet, a socialist lawyer, were elected co-presidents of the club while the more moderate republican Brutus Vassal, a proprietarie, was elected vice-president. At a national level, the dominance of the socialist faction in the Mountain coalition was also reflected in the issues that Republican party candidates campaigned on in the May 1849 elections. The campaign focus upon issues of the right to work, working hours, the nationalization of the railroads, canals, mines, insurance companies, and banks, progesssive taxation, and easy credit for small property owners, reflected the importance of the socialist faction within the party. Election results also

Republican Party, State Power, and the Working Class

185

revealed the shift of balance of power within the party. Republican socialist candidates obtained 2,357,000 votes while moderate republicans obtained only 800,000 votes.*4 The local effort to unite republicans and republican socialists was very short-lived in Toulouse. In March 1849 republican socialists once again launched their own local newspaper La Civilisation, abandoning their effort to collaborate in the publication of Emancipation. The trial of those republicans arrested for their role in the local demonstrations of June 1849 to protest the invasion of Rome further exacerbated the split between republicans. During the trial, which took place in November 1849, working-class republican socialists accused bourgeois republicans of taking money from funds raised to aid political prisoners and of seeking to insure their own acquital while failing to aid the workers arrested in connection with the events of June 1849.“ Many socialists were further angered when Janot, editor of Emancipation, openly declared in court that he was a republican but not a socialist. The split between republicans and republican socialists widened in January 1850 when the editorial board of Emancipation, angered by an article recently published in Civilisation, sent a letter challenging the editors of Civili­ sation to a duel.86 By the beginning of 1850, republicans and republican socialists had separate newspapers as well as separate associations. Republican socialist workers gathered at meetings of the Societe des Travilleurs while bourgeois republicans, most of whom were “moderates,” met regularly at the Cercle de I’Union Democratique on the me du Mai. The factional splits that divided the Republican party were discussed in local republican newspapers. An article initially published in I’Atelier and reprinted in Emancipation on April 4, 1850 because it contained a plea for greater unity on the left observed: “Since before the February Revolution the party of democracy has separated into two large factions, one essentially political and the other essentially socialist ... After the February Revolution, these two elements were separated even more clearly, becoming hostile to one another as though they were two enemy parties ... Popular sympathy which, during the first months of the Revolution was behind the political element of the revolutionary party, soon passed to the socialist element ... Since the insurrection of June until now the socialist element has alone directed revolutionary activity...” Although the split between socialist and nonsocialist republicans did follow class lines, bourgeois republicans provided leadership for both factions of the local party at Toulouse. The leadership of the nonsocialist

186

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

faction of the party remained dominated by lawyers, merchants, and professionals. Among the more prominent leaders of this faction of the party were the lawyers Jacques Joly, Francois Monnte, Francois Cazeneuve, and Jean Beauguel, the merchants Bernard Mute, Prunac, Antoine Monnte, and Jean Francois Vivent, the pharmacist Bernard Dubemat, the doctor Francois Mondouis, the rentier Pierre Roquelaine, and the proprietaire Alphonse Gottreux. A small number of bourgeois republicans, mostly journalists and intellectuals, provided part of the leadership for the predominantly working-class republican socialist fac­ tion of the party and its newspaper Civilisation. Local republicans Jean Baptiste Astima (writer), Armand Duportal (journalist), Paul Crubailles (journalist), and Jacques Lucet (lawyer) embraced socialist doctrines and provided the necessary skills for running the local socialist newspaper Civilisation and its predecessor Le Constituant Democratique. Police surveillance records of those active in the publication of Civilisation contain the names and occupations of twenty-two individuals, including nine bourgeois activists, two petty bourgeois militants, one clerk, and ten artisans. When workers raised money in 1851 to found a new socialist newspaper La Commune, they chose the bourgeois republican socialist leaders Joseph Balansac (bookkeeper) and Jean Baptists Astima (writer) to administer the five to six hundred francs they had collected to start the newspaper. Although local bourgeois republicans provided leadership for both the socialist and nonsocialist factions of the party, the relationship of these leaders to the city’s working class was very different. In an 1851 police report on “the most active and influential demagogues” in Toulouse whose “activities incessantly foster the anarchistic passions of the working class,” the authorities distinguished between bourgeois republican socialist leaders like Duportal and Crubailles and the more respectable moderate leaders like Joly and Gatien-Amoult “who are not involved in the milieu of struggles which take place in the workshop, the carbaret, and public places.” “ The leadership of the socialist faction of the party, in other words, was closely tied to the day-to-day struggles of workers while the leadership of the “moderate” faction of the party was not. In early 1850 local republicans attempted to form their own secret militia, but the conflict dividing socialist and nonsocialist republicans soon took its toll. In April and May 1850 local police reported the exis­ tence of a secret left-wing militia (/a bataillon sacre socialiste) composed of eight hundred persons and divided into twenty-five sections. The police also reported left-wing surveillance of troop movements, the exist­ ence of clandestine gunpowder and arms depots that could provide

Republican Party, State Power, and the Working Class

187

weapons for six thousand men, and rumors of a planned left-wing coup d’btat.1’ The left-wing militia was headed by the republican socialist leader Jean Baptiste Astima and by Joseph Bach, a proprietaire and nonsocialist republican. The highest ranking officers in the secret militia were bourgeois and petty bourgeois republicans chosen from among the ranks of former National Guard officers, while the lower ranking leaders (chefs de section) were mainly workers, most of whom were republican socialists. At the end of May 1850, internal dissension between a largely working-class rank and file and a bourgeois leadership led to the resignation of a large number of officers, including Bach, and a drop in the number of members to five hundred. Astima became the leader of the militia, which was then reorganized into ten sections, each headed by a worker.50 By the end of 1850 social class antagonisms had destroyed the possibility of any close collaboration between local republicans and republican socialists. In November 1850 the authorities ordered the dis­ solution of the working-class political organization the Societe des Travailleurs. A rumor began circulating that the bourgeois republican Cercle de I’Union Democratique, dissolved by order of the prefect several weeks earlier, had been responsible for the action. Bourgeois republican leaders had allegedly complained to the authorities of the injustice of allowing the Societe des Travailleurs to continue meeting while their meetings were banned. Whether or not it was true, the rumor illustrates the intense suspicion and hostility which separated working-class republican socialists and bourgeois republicans. When one of the shoemaker’s leaders, Vincent, began maintaining too close a relationship with bourgeois republican leaders, he was accused of stealing funds from the trade association that he had once headed and of betraying his fellow workers by supporting the bourgeois republican rather than the socialist electoral list. Various police reports of 1851 reveal the further intensification of the split between local republicans and republican socialists. In October 1851 a police spy reported that the local republican newspaper Emancipation was on increasingly bad terms with the city’s workers because the latter had “turned to socialism” while the former, though “quite advanced,” rejected socialist doctrines.’1 The same agent reported that the Cafe du Sud, located in the faubourg Saint-Michel, was no longer the center of left-wing activity that it had once been due to a falling out between the bourgeois and working-class activists who frequented it.’2 That same month, the police commissioner Cazeneaux reported to the prefect that “the republicans have split into factions - the workers, known as the

188

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

pure democrats, which is to say socialists, have repudiated the bourgeois republicans and no longer want to ally with them . . .” ” Divisions be­ tween socialist workers and bourgeois republicans, he wrote, had generated plans for a new republican socialist newspaper which would differ from Emancipation, which “represents a bourgeois Republic,” in that it would stand for “the pure democratic and social Republic in the fashion of Louis Blanc, Blanqui, Cabet, Pierre Leroux, and Proudhon.” " Plans for the newspaper were abruptly cut short by the coup d’etat of Louis Bonaparte, which temporarily destroyed the Republican party and dashed republican socialist hopes for an electoral victory in 1852. The Coup d’Etat of December 2, 1851 The coup d’dtat of December 1851 was preceded by a number of political manoeuvers by Louis Bonaparte which stenghthened the executive power and weakened the elected parliament. In November 1849 Louis Napoleon dismissed the Barrot-Falloux ministry and named a new ministry which included only one member of parliament. This move deprived legitimists and orleanists of their share of executive power and increased Bonaparte’s independence of the National Assembly. Louis Napoleon actively courted the support of officials in the civil ser­ vice and the army, seeking to establish control over these strategic state institutions. After consolidating control over the executive branch and its vast bureaucracies, he proceeded to increase his control over the army and its leadership by dismissing General Changamier in January 1851, over the opposition of many of his own ministers. Changamier, head of the army and the Parisian National Guard, had forbidden shouts of “Long Live Napoleon” in the ranks and had assured the National Assembly that he would supply troops if the Assembly demanded them. The Assembly’s weak response to Changamier’s dismissal was a vote of no confidence in the existing ministry. Louis Bonaparte then named a new ministry which did not include any members of parliament. Changamier’s dismissal was part of Bonaparte’s effort to remove the threat of a parliamentary army that might oppose his future attempt to illegally seize power. On July 20, 1851, the National Assembly rejected a proposal to revise the constitution to allow Bonaparte to serve another term of office. This move left Louis Napoleon with the choice of either relinquishing power when his term of office expired or retaining power illegally through a coup d’etat. The final roadblock to Bonaparte’s coup was removed on October 14, 1851 when the National Assembly voted not to grant the president of the Assembly the right to requisition troops.

Republican Party, State Power, and the Working Class

189

Louis Napoleon skillfully divided his political opposition by promoting the fear among republicans that a law granting the Assembly the right to requisition troops might lead to a coup d’etat by the party of order. On the basis of this fear, over three-fourths of the Assembly’s Mountain representatives voted against the proposal. When the coup finally arrived in December 1851, the party of order, which dominated the Assembly that Louis Napoleon dissolved, was in no position to resist Bonaparte’s violation of the constitution. They had done nothing in June 1849 when he violated the constitution by invading Rome. Many of them hesitantly accepted the coup since it put an end to conservative fears of a repub­ lican socialist electoral victory in the May 1852 elections. The coup took place in the context of a parliamentary political stalemate and a red scare. Louis Napoleon stepped into the political vacuum created by divisions between the political representatives of the property-owning classes, the Orleanist and Legitimist parties, and by their inability to devise a successful strategy to deal with the growing threat posed by the development of republican socialism. Those on both the left and the right anticipated a republican socialist victory in the legislative and presidential elections of 1852. Louis Bona­ parte used the threat of social revolution in preparing for his illegal seizure of power, but the threat was no mere myth conjured up by a politically ambitious dictator. Despite intensified repression, a wellorganized nationwide mass movement of republican socialism continued to grow and its stength was in part revealed by the widespread resistance to the coup d’etat. Over 26,000 persons were arrested for resisting the coup, the largest wave of mass political arrests that France had ever witnessed. Resistance to the coup d’etat included barricades and bloody confrontations in Paris, uprisings of peasants throughout southern France, and demonstrations of protest in almost all major cities. Although the repression failed to prevent the largest national insurrec­ tion in nineteenth century France ... ,” writes John Merriman, it probably prevented an uprising of even greater proportions be severing the organizational links which maintained montagnard commitment. ” Preparations for the coup d’etat at Toulouse were organized by the prefect Maupas, who was appointed to his post in March of 1851. After Maupas’s arrival at Toulouse, the number of trials for press crimes in­ creased as did the number of mayors and other officials removed from office by order of the central state. During the month of July 1851, several printing and bookstore licenses were revoked and police raided •he homes of local Republican party leaders Mul6, Roquelaine, Duportal, and Janot as well as the offices of Emancipation. Maupas

190

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

openly proclaimed his contempt for procedures of due process by ord­ ering the arrest of several republicans without providing any evidence of the commission of a crime. When judicial officials requested some evidence of wrongdoing before issuing the arrest warrants, Maupas replied that there would be plenty of time to search for incriminating evidence later. In July 1851 Maupas announced the prohibition of all clubs, political banquets, and other public gatherings. After preparations for the coup were completed at Toulouse, Maupas was called to Paris where he assumed the post of prefect of police. His successor as prefect at Toulouse, Pietri, arrived to find the situation under control. Only eight days after assuming office Pietri issued wall posters announcing the coup d’etat and proclaiming the dissolution of the National Assembly. When news of the coup reached Toulouse, crowds gathered on the place du Capitole in front of city hall to protest the event. They were soon dispersed by troops after an unsucessful attempt to invade city hall. The republican newspaper Emancipation and the socialist newspaper Civilsation printed an appeal for insurrection signed by most prominent local republican leaders. The authorities deployed military forces throughout the city and police arrested noted republican activists, in­ cluding all those who had signed the appeal to resist the coup. This appeal to insurrection labeled Louis Napoleon a perjurer, traitor, and criminal and called for armed resistance led by local National Guard units and revolutionary committees. Despite the vehemance of the rhe­ toric, the resistance was limited to several ineffective demonstrations of protest that were easily dispersed by troops. This relatively weak response to the coup at Toulouse was due to the repression which pre­ ceded the coup, to republican leaders’ insistence upon legality prior to the coup, to the tremendous military force which accompanied the coup, and to the progressive alienation of the working class from a National Assembly that showed little concern for working-class interests. After the coup, all demonstrations were banned, gunpowder was seized from all of the city’s gunstores, all meetings were banned, and the local republican and socialist newspapers were suspended. Police swept the city, arresting over two hundred suspected political opponents. The prefect revoked all previous authorizations for any type of public gathering and required all caf6, tavern, and cabaret owners to apply for a special license. On December 20, 1851 Toulousain voters approved the coup d’etat in a plebiscite marked by massive abstentions. The authorities who engi­ neered the coup took great care to insure victory in the plebiscite. The prefect Pietri ordered the distribution of “yes” ballots, printed at

Republican Party, State Power, and the Working Class

191

government expense, at voters’ homes and at polling places while the distribution of “no” ballots was placed under close police surveillance. Louis Napoleon’s coup d’etat put an end to fears of a republican socialist victory and ushered in an era of police state repression, rapid industrial growth, and unprecedented industrial capital accumulation. The wealthy financiers of Paris welcomed the coup d’dtat. When Emile Pereire, one of France’s leading capitalists, announced to his fellow bankers that the coup was probably going to be successful, “the great financiers heard the reassuring news with pleasure.”96 The bourgeoisie of high finance signaled its approval of the new regime by renewing the charter of the Bank of France just after the coup. The Bank, governed by a small oligarchy of wealthy bankers, also agreed to encourage economic growth by accepting railway shares and stock as collateral for loans. The restoration of business confidence which followed Louis Bonaparte’s illegal seizure of power was also reflected in a sharp rise in the prices quoted on the Paris stock exchange, an increase of four billion francs in the first six months of the new regime.” “The bourgeoisie,” writes Tom Kemp, “craved for a political environment which would protect their property and open the way for new profitable investments and business ventures ... it was prepared to accept a curtailment of civil and political rights in return for a prospect of peaceful material progress. This was the promise of the regime....”98

7 Political Repression and the Development of Working-Class Politics: The Second Empire

The Police State of Louis Bonaparte Louis Napoleon’s coup d’etat was followed by an intensification of the repression directed against workers and republicans. The new regime sought to eliminate political opposition by a greater reliance upon pre­ emptive rather than responsive tactics of repression, by the expansion of police powers and centralization of policing activities, by an increased coordination between different government agencies of repression, by an abandonment of previous restrictions imposed by jury trials and the rules of due process, and by a stricter enforcement of existing restrictions on assembly, association, and the press.' The coup d’etat, writes Howard Payne, inaugurated a “police state characterized by a preponderant executive in command of a centralized bureaucracy whose edicts superceded the voice of local government and which systematically used decisive police controls over the expression and organization of public opinion.”2 The repression which followed the coup d’etat accomplished what the repression of the Second Republic failed to achieve. It des­ troyed the Republican party, put republican leaders behind bars or drove them into exile, eliminated republican and socialist newspapers and propaganda, and removed the threat of a republican socialist electoral victory. The Imperial regime relied upon preemptive rather than responsive tactics of repression to eliminate republican propaganda and to prevent republican collective actions? Instead of responding to republican news­ paper attacks on the government by arresting editors and publishers, the regime simply banned republican newspapers. Rather than waiting to 193

194

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

arrest republican militants for their participation in collective actions, the authorities arrested suspected republican militants for their role in the mobilization of opposition to the regime. Ordinary laws and judicial procedures were suspended in favor of military laws which gave unres­ trained power to the police and military and gave the prefects dictatorial powers. Special tribunals (mixed commissions) composed of the prefect, the commanding general, and the general prosecutor, were established throughout France to summarily judge suspected political opponents of the new regime. Over 26,000 persons were tried by the mixed commissions, including many who took no part in the resistance to the coup d’etat but were judged guilty of having been active in the repub­ lican political opposition. The repression was directed not only at individual republican militants but at republican newspapers and gathering places as well. New press legisation was implemented after the coup which eliminated jury trials for political offenses, raised the stamp tax, granted prefects the power to suspend newspapers without authorization from Paris, and prohibited any discussion of “the political or social economy.”4 The repression of the Second Republic had succeeded in driving republican associations underground into the informal networks of cafes, cabarets, and taverns. The repression which followed the coup was directed at these centers of sociability. Immediately after the coup, Louis Bonaparte issued a decree which citied the extremely rapid growth of cates and cabarets as a cause of disorder, noted their frequent use as centers of secret political societies, and required prior government authorization for all cafes, cabarets, and other liquor outlets (debits de boissori). The decree also gave prefects the authority to close down any such establishment and set a fine of twenty-five to five hundred francs and six days to six months imprison­ ment for violators of these new regulations? The repression which followed the coup d’etat was also directed against working-class labor organizations and labor unrest. In 1853 the regime passed a law which restored control of labor arbitration boards (conseils desprud’hommes) to employers. These boards, composed of both workers and employers, had been quite popular in resolving disputes because they were inexpensive and they did not necessitate hiring lawyers. The law of May 1848 mandated equal representation on the boards of workers and employers, but gave workers a decisive advantage by classifying foremen and small artisanal masters as employers. The new law of 1853 reclassified these two groups as workers and gave the government the power to appoint the president and vice-president of all arbitration boards. The Imperial regime invariably chose wealthy

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

195

employers to head the boards.6 In 1854 the regime introduced laws to reinforce existing licensing procedures designed for the surveillance and social control of workers. All workers were required to obtain the signatures of their employer and the mayor in their passports (livrets) in order to change jobs, as proof that they had no debts or obligations to previous employers. Due to the prevalence of wage advances and loans from employers during periods of hard times, these regulations gave employers greater control over their workers and made it more difficult for workers to change jobs. The new laws extended the licensing system to women as well as men and tried to ensure stricter enforcement of existing regulations. The Imperial government disbanded all working-class labor associations suspected of republican sympathies at the same time that it made an effort to co-opt working-class mutual aid associations. An Imperial decree of 1852 created state-sponsored and governmentregulated mutual benefit societies, entitled societes approuvees, in an attempt to incorporate workers into government-controlled associations. Those organizations which registered as societes approuvees were prohibited from using funds to support striking workers and had to admit workers from all occupations and limit the size of their membership and treasury. In return, they acquired several privileges, including a free meeting place, exemption from the posting and registration of their acts, the right to use their membership cards in place of passports, and freedom from police harassment. The law did not require that all mutual aid socieities seek government approval, but these incentives encouraged them to do so. The repression at Toulouse had the same targets as the repression that took place elsewhere in France: republican militants, newspapers, and gathering places and working-class labor associations and collective actions. At Toulouse the political prosecution of republican militants which followed the coup d’etat focused upon those who had either signed the appeal to insurrection in the city’s republican newspapers or had demonstrated against the coup on the place du Capitole. It also included several persons guilty of no specific crime but known to have been active in the city’s republican movement. One hundred and fifteen Toulousains were arrested and tried by the department’s mixed commission and seventy of them were convicted. The same groups which had provided the bulk of participants to the city’s republican movement during the Second Republic — bourgeois professionals and merchants (26%), petty bourgeois shopkeepers and small producers (13%), and working-class artisans (43%) — accounted for the vast majority (82%) of

196

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

the 105 individuals identified by occupation as victims of the repression.7 Among those convicted by the mixed commission, the severest sentences — deportation to Cayenne and Algeria — were reserved for working-class republican socialists and for a few top bourgeois Republican party leaders. The city’s two republican newspapers, both of which had published appeals to resist Louis Bonaparte’s illegal seizure of power, were banned following the coup. The new regime relied upon intensified surveillance and regulation as well as outright suppression to deal with the danger posed by local cafes, cabarets, and taverns. During the winter of 1855, the imperial prosecutor at Toulouse reported that cabarets were, in general, less frequented and less numerous than in the past due to the high price of wine and alcoholic beverages. “The strict surveillance by the author­ ities of these centers of assembly and disorder,” he added, “has played a role in improving the situation.”' In 1858 alone, the authorities at Toulouse closed down three cabarets and two cafes and denied forty­ eight requests for the creation of new establishments.’ Working-class labor associations and collective actions were also targets of the repression at Toulouse. In August 1852 the tailors’ mutual benefit society (Societe des Ouvriers Tailleurs) was suspended by order of the government. The mutual benefit society I’Egalite du Travail, founded in April 1851 with a cabinetmaker, an old clothes dealer, a woodworker, a painter, a printer, and a day laborer providing its leadership, accepted members from all trades aged twenty-one to forty-five and met regularly at a dance hall on the place Saint-Aubin. Its statutes formally prohibited the discussion of all religious and political matters,10 but on July 12, 1853 the prefect ordered its dissolution, noting that “its composition does not present sufficient guarantees for the maintenance of order and public tranquility.”11 On October 26, 1853, the authorities ordered the disso­ lution of the mutual benefit socity Saint-Croix of the faubourg SaintCyprien on the grounds that it was a threat to public order. Government officials also refused to approve requests for the authorization of any mutual benefit society if the political leanings of its members were sus­ pect. In November 1853 the prefect at Toulouse refused authorization for the Saint-Bernard mutual benefit society, noting that the membership belonged to the Republican party and that, if authorized, the society would undoubtedly become a political club.'2 The government accompanied these efforts to preempt labor and political unrest by banning suspected working-class associations with direct action against working-class strike activities. In June 1855 the authorities successfully broke a shoemakers’ strike, intimidating striking

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

197

workers into returning to work by arresting their leaders. During the summer of 1855, the authorities also arrested the suspected leaders of striking carpenters, carriage painters, bakers, long sawyers, and tile work­ ers.1’ At the trial of the bakers’ strike leadership, a worker in the audience who shouted out that the employer on the stand was lying was arrested and later sentenced to a month in prison. In September 1855 the prefect intervened to break the marble cutters’ strike by ordering the dismissal of all striking workers who had found temporary employment as day laborers on the railroad. The repression which followed the coup d’etat did succeed in curtailing republican electoral activities and propaganda and in eliminating Republican party leaders from the local political scene. Voter turnout in the Imperial elections of the 1850s was very low and the republicans, with their leaders in jail or exile, their newspapers closed down, and their associations banned, were incapable of organizing an effective electoral opposition. “The Republican party,” reported the prefect in Toulouse in April 1852, “has been forced to admit its impotence. ... Socialism is defeated and buried, but its latent force remains among the lower reaches of society....14 The repression was not completely successful, however, in that it did not totally destroy the organization of the working class or of the Republican party. Since the repression of the Second Republic, republican activities had moved underground into the cafes, cabarets, and workshops of the city. The intensified repression which followed the coup d’etat proved incapable of destroying these underground networks. It is in the cafes, wrote the imperial prosecutor in Toulouse in 1858, that “the news of the day circulates and political party directives, especially for republicans and socialists, are handed down.” ” Workers also managed to maintain labor organizations despite the intensified repression. “There are no secret societies,” wrote the imperial prosecutor in July 1858, “but there are a throng of working-class and artisanal associations whose ostensible goal is mutual aid, who usually pay little attention to politics, but, eventually, can facilitate communication and the transmission of opinions and directives....” “ One of the major consequences of the political repression of the 1850s was to channel working-class economic and political activities away from formal Republican party structures, in which the bourgeoisie played a dominant role, into the social networks of mutual aid societies, cafes, taverns, and workshops, which were more exclusively working class in character. In their attempt to destroy the Republican party by eliminat­ ing its bourgeois leadership, government authorities weakened the con­ trol of bourgeois republicans over the party’s working-class electoral base

198

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

and fostered the growth of a more autonomous and more decentralized working-class based movement. In the absence of the Republican party and its bourgeois leadership, workers continued to gather regularly to discuss politics and to pursue autonomous political activity outside the formal structure of the Republican party. Secret police reports of the summer of 1854 state that meetings of workers took place every evening in several homes in Toulouse’s working-class neighborhoods. Police were unable to gather sufficient information to take action and could not even acquire the names of the leaders. They reported that these clandestine gatherings were headed by men of little political stature and that the really important leaders on the left had fallen victim to the repression which followed the coup d’etat.17 In April 1859 the imperial prosecutor at Toulouse commented upon the threat of a new, younger, and more militant leadership emerging from the rank and file of the left. “It is not the old leaders of the Republican party,” he wrote, “who will pose the greatest threat when the occasion arises. Their names, like a flag, will initially rally the soldiers of demagogy, but then new men will emerge from the ranks, younger and more daring. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict who they will be.” I! By eliminating bourgeois republican leaders from the scene, the repression which followed the coup d’etat fostered the emergence of militant, class-conscious, working-class leaders who accepted republican socialism as their political credo.

Electoral Manipulation and Bonapartist Political Patronage

In the short run, the political repression of the 1850s succeeded in eliminating the electoral threat posed by republicans. This threat was neutralized despite the maintainence of universal male suffrage throughout the nineteen years of Louis Bonaparte’s rule. The potential danger posed by universal male suffrage was prevented from materializing during the 1850s by the use of electoral manipulation and political patronage, both of which accompanied intensified repression as key elements of the Imperial strategy of political rule. Despite its intense repression of republicans, the Imperial regime retained one of the central legacies of the Second Republic, universal male suffrage. The regime relied upon various practices to insure that this did not endanger its political control. Napoleonic officials carefully revised existing electoral lists to exclude known left-wing activists, ger­ rymandered electoral districts to counterbalance the urban republican vote with conservative rural votes, and made great use of public funds

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

199

and administrative pressure to ensure their candidates’ victories. In the municipal elections of 1852 the prefect at Toulouse ordered that all city councilmen be elected for the city at large rather than by districts. He informed the Minister of the Interior that, should this strategy fail, he would again request the immediate dissolution of the city council and then organize new elections based upon carefully devised electoral dis­ tricts.1’ The potential impact of universal male suffrage was limited by measures which weakened the parliament and made mayors appointed rather than elected officials. The lower house of parliament, which was elected by universal male suffrage, had only 260 members compared to 750 under the Second Republic, and its powers were severely restricted. It did not even have the power to initiate legislation and it met only three months each year. The Imperial regime’s system of electoral management relied heavily upon appointed officials, especially mayors and prefects, rather than upon a political party apparatus. In some rural areas Bonapartist political patronage was aimed at rallying the support of legitimist and orleanist notables, while in other areas, like the southwest, bonapartist patronage succeeded in replacing the rule of aristocratic notables with the rule of government officials, mainly state-appointed mayors and prefects. “Our aim,” wrote the prefect at Toulouse in July of 1854, “is to remove all that can give importance to party or coterie leaders and to create a direct communion between Louis Napoleon and the people, which admits of no intermediary. Every attempt at oligarchy, at patronage, outside the [government’s] administrative hierarchy is an evil. .Napoleonic patronage strategies were highly successful in wining votes in many rural areas of France, including the southwest. Theodore Zeldin writes:

In a rural situation it was not difficult for a mayor to see every one of the electors and show them exactly what material and local issues were at stake in the elections. To help him he had a small army of officials — his deputy mayor, the village constable, the road mender, the tax collector, the postman, the innkeeper who depended on him for his license, the tobacconist whose trade was part of the state monopoly, and not least the schoolmaster, who was often also the mayor’s secretary. Together they formed an electoral machine which no opposition party could easily rival and which could reach every village. That is why so many villages voted almost unanimously, in the way they were asked to by the government, and the mayors took care to point out that they did so in the expectation of material rewards, in the form of subsidies and favors...

200

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

Although successful in rural areas, Naopleonic patronage tactics failed in the cities, where workers maintained their republican allegiances despite expensive public works projects which stimulated local urban economies and provided employment for many French workers throughout the 1850s and 1860s. During the 1860s, the regime made a concerted effort to win over urban working-class support by implementing a variety of liberal reforms and by abandoning the repressive policies of the 1850s. The Liberal Empire of the 1860s

A conservative political alliance of legitimists, orleanists, and the clergy had initially supported the coup d’etat and rallied behind the Imperial regime in response to the “red threat” of 1852. The new regime also won aristocratic and clerical support during the 1850s by imple­ menting policies which increased the salaries of priests and strengthened clerical control over education. During the late 1850s, however, this conservative alliance and the electoral strategy that it sustained began to fall apart, due to a controversial foreign policy in Italy and to the implementation of “free trade” tariff policies. Louis Napoleon’s support of Piedmont in its war with Austria and in its annexation of papal ter­ ritories antagonized the French clergy and aristocracy and became the focal point of legitimist and clerical opposition to the regime. The government responded to clerical and aristocratic attacks on its policies with repressive measures, like the banning of the Catholic newspaper I’Univers and the dissolution of the legitimist charitable society Saint Vincent de Paul. This further alienated the clergy and aristocracy from the regime.22 A large segment of the French bourgeoisie was also angry with the government over the negative effects on commerce of foreign military adventures, like the Italian and Mexican expeditions, and over the Empire’s free trade policies. The commercial treaty of 1860 with Britain, which reduced tariffs on English manufactured goods, played a role in destroying the conservative alliance by alienating protectionists from the regime. The Imperial regime made a poor showing in the elections of 1863, due mainly to Catholic and protectionist opposition. The Imperial government responded with a determined effort to broaden its base of support by appealing to the working class and to “moderate” republicans and orleanists through liberal policies of political and social reform. During the 1860s a variety of political reforms were enacted to make the executive branch more accountable to parliament and to liberalize existing restrictions on newspapers and on the right to assembly and

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

201

association. A variety of liberal social reforms were also enacted in an effort to win working-class support, including factory legislation to cor­ rect abuses, government sponsorship of workers’ cooperatives, and a relaxation of restrictions on strikes and labor associations. The govern­ ment, which had initially banned workers’ cooperatives as dangerous centers of socialism, began fostering the creation of such cooperatives in an effort to gain working-class support and divert workers’ economic grievances away from the political arena. The central government set up a fund (caisse imperiale) of 500,000 francs to sponsor such organizations.23 The government also legalized strikes in May 1864 but maintained restrictions on the right to assemble and organize. Although Louis Napoleon had first announced plans to modify the law on associations in 1863, it was not until March 1868 that an Imperial edict decreed that workers’ organizations would be tolerated. The edict allowed workers’ associations to exist provided that they submitted their statutes for official approval, gave the authorities copies of the minutes of their meetings, and allowed police agents to attend their gatherings.2' The regime also repealed the infamous article 1781 of the civil code which stated that in the absence of written records, the word of an employer was to be taken over that of a worker in legal disputes over wages. The liberal reforms of the 1860s were not very successful in rallying working-class or liberal republican and orleanist support behind the regime. Instead, the reforms further antagonized conservatives and strengthened the Republican party and the working class by giving workers and republicans greater freedom to carry on their organizing activities and to launch rebellious collective actions. The late 1860s were marked by a revival of working-class labor associations and an outburst of working-class strike activity.25 The strike wave which swept France during the later years of the Empire did not bypass the city of Toulouse, where militant strike actions tested the government’s new liberal policies on the right to assembly and association. A masons’ strike in May 1868, which occurred amidst strikes by local tawers, carriage smiths, foundry workers, house painters, carriage painters, and locksmiths, halted all construction work, thereby affecting four to five thousand workers. On May 15, 1868, the day after strikers had demonstrated at the prefecture, the prefect banned all future meetings of the striking masons. After local police arrested strike leaders for using threats against those who remained at work and troops dispersed meetings of strikers, the masons returned to work with higher wages but without the ten-hour day they had struck for.26 Despite the active intervention of the authorities in the strike, Imperial officials hesitated before using troops to break strikes. In

202

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

June 1868, when the commanding general at Toulouse received a request from the prefect to use troops to break the bakers’ strike, he replied that the thirty-eight soldiers who had been trained as bakers in civilian life would be ready to replace strikers if the need arose, but only for three days, after which time employers would have to find their own replace­ ments. When the bakers again threatened to strike in July 1870, the central police commissioner intervened on the workers’ side, persuading employers to grant the one franc per day raise that workers were demanding.2’ Local authorities feared that the liberalized laws on association and assembly might provide workers with the opportunity to engage not only in strikes but in rebellious political activities as well. If local workers are allowed to meet too often, noted one police commissioner, they might, “having nothing more to say about their situation vis A vis their employers, discuss other subjects, such as politics.”28 These fears were not unwarranted, for Toulousain workers came to play an important role in the revival of republican politics that marked the latter years of the Second Empire. The liberal reforms of the 1860s, in eliminating or weakening repressive restrictions on association, assembly, and the press, made possible a revival of the Republican party, which soon threatened the continued existence of the Imperial regime.

The Revival of Republican Electoral Politics The late 1850s and early 1860s witnessed the beginning of a revival of republican electoral activities throughout France. In Toulouse, as elsewhere in France, the growing electoral strength of the Republican party was accompanied by a declining number of abstentions. In 1852, when the republicans ran no candidates, 54% of the city’s registered voters stayed away from the polls. The abstention level was as high as 80% in the predominantly working-class western canton of the city. In the legislative elections of 1857, the republicans ran two candidates, Arago and Pages, but their electoral activities were subject to close police sur­ veillance and they had no newspaper or electoral committee to direct the campaign. Local police kept a close watch over republican electoral activities during the 1857 campaign, maintaining surveillance of thirtyfive individuals who worked as republican “electoral agents” for the candidacies of Arago and Pages.” Among these thirty-five electoral activists were five petty bourgeois shopkeepers and tavern owners, six bourgeois merchants, three bourgeois professionals, a proprietarie, and twenty artisans, including three shoemakers, three joiners, three carriage

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

203

workers, two metalsmiths, two nailsmith, a locksmith, a stonecutter, a painter, a tanner, a furniture maker, a baker, and a butcher. Seventeen of the thirty-five persons identified by police as active in the 1857 campaign had been the target of police surveillance during the Second Republic because of their political activities. Eight of them, including the work­ ing-class leaders Rolland (stonecutter), Rividre (shoemaker), Vidal (shoemaker), and Gerla (joiner), had been convicted by the mixed commission to exile or surveillance but had later been pardoned during the early 1850s. Despite police surveillance and political restrictions, the two repu­ blican candidates won 6,660 (53.5%) of the 12,395 votes cast, in an election in which 42% of the city’s eligible voters did not vote. The official Imperial candidates, despite a strong campaign and widespread admin­ istrative pressures garnered only 5,746 votes in the city, but won the election with rural votes. The success of the republican candidates on a local level in the election of 1857 gave a boost to the party, but the local wave of political arrests which followed the assasination attempt on Louis Napoleon in January 1858 served as a reminder to party activists that their activities exposed them to the risk of a prison sentence. As retribution for the assasination attempt, central state authorities ordered local officials to select ten republican political activists who had been convicted by the mixed commission and later pardoned but who still continued their political activities. Seven of the ten Toulousains chosen for deportation to Algeria were workers — three shoemakers, a tailor, a printer, a hatmaker, and a butcher—while the remaining three, all wholesale merchants, were bourgeois republican leaders. During the 1860s the Republican party of Toulouse waged several victorious local election campaigns, focusing upon a variety of issues that appealed to diverse interests and attracted bourgeois, petty bourgeois, and working-class support. Republican party candidates appealed to petty bourgeois voters, especially shopkeepers, by campaigning against the government’s unpopular urban renewal projects. Bourgeois merchants were drawn to the party in increasing numbers in support of republican opposition to growing economic centralization and to the monopoly control exercised by northern capitalists over southern tran­ sportation. Workers, who provided the party with its most important source of support, were attracted by the party’s attacks upon inequitable •axes, high food prices, and continuing restrictions upon assembly, association, and the right to strike. Other issues, including the regime’s foreign policy and the issue of political decentralization, also played a role in the growth of electoral opposition to the Imperial regime during

204

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

the 1860s, but it was mainly local issues, especially the unpopular public works projects, that provided republicans with powerful ammunition in their electoral campaigns. The Imperial government’s plans to build new large boulevards through the center of Toulouse aroused intense opposition during the 1860s. Small shopkeepers staunchly opposed the planned boulevards, fearing both the costly threat of relocation and the competition from large department stores that were likely to set up on the new boulevards. During the electoral campaign of 1865, republican candidates attacked the central state funded and administered public works projects, criticizing the city council for raising taxes to finance the projects and for contracting Parisian rather than local business firms to do the work." Although local public works projects received 2,150,000 francs in central state funding, as well as funds generated by raising the regressive octroi taxes to their legal maximum, the city government went into debt. Municipal finances created a political scandal in 1865 when the commission charged with such matters reported a debt of 8,000 to 9,000 francs, only to discover several days later that the actual figure was twice as high?' Republican candidates also attacked the secrecy and corruption of the public works projects. They pointed out that the Lapeyrouse home, with an officially estimated value of 70,000 francs, was purchased by the city government for 210,000 francs. The new livestock market con­ structed by the city, the stalls of which were capable of generating an estimated rental income of 40,000 francs per year, was leased by the city government to private entrepreneurs for only 200 francs a year. Repub­ lican candidates also pointed out that the large profits made from the government’s public works projects found their way into the pockets of Parisian rather than Toulousain entrepreneurs, despite the lower bids frequently offered by local contractors. The pumps and turbines for the water tower (chateau d’eau) built during the 1860s were ordered from a Parisian firm at a cost of 190,000 to 200,000 francs, despite an offer from a local entrepreneur to provide them for 110,000 to 120,000 francs. The plants used to line the newly built walkways (promenades) were also purchased in Paris at a much higher price than was available locally, and the massive quantity of materials (cintres en fer) used to line the walkways was also purchased in Paris, despite lower local prices.” Although local officals justified the choice of Parisian contractors in terms of the superior quality of their goods, political considerations appear to have played an important role in their decisions, since the approval of Parisian officialdom, usually the Counseil Superior des Ponts et Chausses, was needed in order to receive central state subsidies.

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

205

Republican party candidates also campaigned successfully on the issue of opposition to monopolies during the 1860s. This issue, a reference to the monopoly control of transport achieved by the railroad company and the resulting competitive disadvantage facing Toulousain merchants, attracted widespread support from the city’s commercial bourgeoisie. The railroad company which controlled the lines of the southwest wiped out its competition by purchasing control over the Canal du Midi and then raising regional transport costs, thereby making Toulousain grains and other goods less competitive on the national and international market. In 1865 the republican-dominated city council urged central state authorities to put an end to this disastrous monopolistic situation by purchasing the canal. The city’s Chamber of Commerce also urged the state to purchase the canal and prevent inequitable railroad rates,” but the central government failed to take any action. In 1867 the Toulouse Chamber of Commerce broke a longstanding tradition by rejecting several candidates proposed by the government (the Tribunal Consulate) for election into its ranks. They cast their votes instead in favor of two members of the recently dissolved republican-dominated city council, Bernard Mule, a noted Republican party leader, and Dubois. Republican candidates also appealed for working-class electoral sup­ port by attacking Imperial authorities for the high price of bread and other necessities. An imperial decree of June 1863 had eliminated price controls on bread, in the hope that a “laissez-faire” policy would stimu­ late competition and bring down prices. The policy was a failure, how­ ever, as local officials repeatedly noted. The imperial prosecutor, com­ menting in January of 1864 upon the elimination of price regulations at Toulouse, reported that the new policy had resulted in steadily rising bread prices, despite a decline in the price of grain. “The bakers alone,” he wrote, “have profited from the suspension of price regulations; no competition has emerged and in Toulouse, for example, where there are 180 bakers, only three or four new establishments have opened up and they prefer to share increased profits with their predecessors rather than quarrel with them by lowering prices....”” Many Toulousain workers blamed the rising price of food upon the government’s laissez-faire approach and upon government tax policies. Food prices became an important republican political issue during the elections of the 1860s. In the 1865 city council elections, Dominique Petit, a republican candidate, blamed the rising cost of living upon regressive octroi taxes on goods entering the city. In a campaign brochure he observed that “a hectoliter of wine, taxed 1.47 francs in 1858, now pays 2.40 francs in entry taxes. Beer entry taxes have risen from 3.66 francs to 6 francs, vinegar from 1.83

206

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

francs to 5.50 francs, fish from 4.57 a kilo to 7.70 francs, and meat from 9.13 francs to 14.06 francs.”55 “The food crisis,” wrote the prefect at Toulouse in 1865, “is the issue they exploit most easily, because the masses feel the effects of it each day and they do not hesitate to blame the government for this malady....”56 Republican candidates also appealed for working-class votes during the 1860s by attacking local government agencies charged with providing public goods and services. The republican newspaper Emancipation printed articles about the absence of adequate public utilities, including gas, lighting, and water, in the working-class faubourgs. One article, published in October 1868, complained that “the city government owes its services to those living near the city limits as much as it does to those Toulousains living in the center of the city. Gas [lights] ... bum only in the right-thinking neighborhoods [quartiers bien peasants] and the faubourgs are submerged in darkness.”57 Another important political issue raised by Toulouse’s Republican party candidates during the elections of the 1860s concerned decentralization and municipal liberties. One of the central demands raised by the republican opposition under the banner of municipal liberties was for the election rather than appointment of mayors. The issue of electing rather than appointing mayors fundamentally chal­ lenged the political foundations of the Imperial regime. During the 1850s the Imperial state had temporarily neutralized the political class struggles of the Second Republic by shifting political power into the hands of appointed officials, expecially mayors and prefects, and by carefully managing, through political repression and public patronage, the outcomes of elections. Mayors, who were appointed by the prefects, played a central role in the entire Napoleonic system of electoral management and political patronage. The loosening of restrictions on the right to association and the right to a free press during the late 1860s led to an increasingly better organized electoral opposition to the regime, while the demand for the election of mayors threatened to turn Imperial electoral defeats into major challenges to state power and property rights. The debate over the issue of electing rather than appointing mayors elicited several statements by Imperial officials at Toulouse which pointed to this threat. “If mayors are elected by universal suffrage or even by city councils,” wrote the imperial prosecutor at Toulouse in July 1870, “there is the strong danger that many communes will join a tacit rebellion against the legal order, that laws ... will no longer be enforced, and that in these refuges, where looting will go unpunished, the situation of large and middling property will become intolerable.”58 By inter-

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

207

preting the issue of the election of mayors as a matter ultimately con­ cerning the maintenance of order and the protection of private property, the imperial prosecutor was implicitly pointing out the fundamental contradiction posed by universal male suffrage. In the context of early industrial capitalist development, the contradiction between the formal political equality of universal male suffrage and the tremendous in­ equalities of social class produced a dialectical tension between political power and social structure that threatened revolutionary change. Although a short-term resolution to some of the manifestations of this contradiction was attempted, it could not be repressed into extinction during the 1850s or legislated out of existence by the liberal reforms of the 1860s, as the revolutionary events of 1870-71 soon revealed. The reemergence of republican electoral activities was accompanied by the formation of a liberal political alliance between orleanists and republicans in 1863. During the 1860s, local orleanist candidates joined republicans in common opposition to Imperial foreign policy, including the Mexican war, and to government restrictions on association, assem­ bly, and the press. The liberal alliance was also united in support of a reduction of executive power in favor of the elected parliament and in support of greater decentralization and municipal liberties. The electoral opposition was successful in winning a majority of votes at Toulouse in the legislative elections of 1863, but they lost the election in the country­ side. The Republican party, encouraged by its local electoral strength, launched a successful effort to propagandize local workers and to rebuild their party apparatus. The authorities, whose job it was to keep a close watch over such activities, reported in 1864 that “cafts and cabarets, increasingly numerous and increasingly frequented by urban and rural workers, are the scenes of a propaganda [campaign] that does not manifest itself by any illegality or apparent disorder, but is nonetheless active and deadly. ... It is by this means ... that the Republican party, not long ago silent and timid, is making daily progress and has arrived at a position that we must reckon with... ” ” Growing republican electoral strength posed the greatest threat to the regime in the arena of municipal politics, for in city council elections there were few conservative rural votes to counterbalance republican votes. In the municipal elections of 1865 the republican-orleanist electoral alliance won thirty-two of the thirty-six contested city council seats. As in 1841 republican control of the city council soon led to a confrontation with central state officials. The new city council severely criticized the fiscal policies of its predecessors, annulled an important public works contract negotiated by the previous council, and appointed

208

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

a commission headed by Bernard Mule to study the revision of the municipal electoral lists.* The results of the committee’s work included, to the great dismay of Napoleonic officials, the elimination of 1,400 persons previously qualified to vote and the addition of 8,000 persons, mostly workers, who had previously been excluded from the suffrage.41 A local banquet provided the central state with an opportunity to disband the republican-dominated city council. After first refusing to participate in an official banquet because it would include a toast to the Emperor, the council split evenly over the issue, and the mayor in­ tervened to cast the deciding vote in favor of participation. Thirteen city council members refused to participate, however, and held their own banquet at a nearby restaurant. The mayor Amilhau, in his official toast to the Emperor, lamented the deplorable economic situation of the city and region and criticized central state authorities, including the prefect. The incident was followed by an exchange of letters between the mayor and central state officials, a rebuke by the Minister of the Interior, and the mayor’s resignation. After a city council resolution was proposed to condemn the situation of a city without a mayor, the prefect intervened and dissolved the city council. On September 15, 1866, Louis Napoleon signed a decree appointing a municipal commission to replace the city council. Hand-printed placards appeared in the city, denouncing the prefect and threatening anyone who dared to accept an appointment on the new municipal commission. The former mayor Amilhau became a popular hero and was soon elected to the departmental general council (counseil general) as the candidate of the republican-orleanist alliance.” The republican opposition continued its attacks on the appointed municipal government, discrediting the appointed city commission, per­ suading some of its members to resign, and making it very difficult for the authorities to find replacements. When municipal elections were finally held again in October 1869, the Republican party regained control of the city council. The republican electoral resurgence of the 1860s was led by a small group of bourgeois merchants, lawyers, and journalists, almost all of whom were older men who had been active in Republican party politics during the July Monarchy and/or Second Republic. The republican city council contingent during the late 1860s included Gatien Amoult (professor), Bernard Mule (merchant), Antoine Monnie (merchant), Jean Beziat (merchant), and Joseph Bonnal (architect), all of whom were prominent in the local struggle for a Republic during the July Monarchy, as well as Charles St. Gresse (lawyer), Edmond Valette (rentier), Jean Izard (merchant), and Jean Bonnet (master metal found-

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

209

er), who were local republican activists during the Second Republic. All of these men were in their fifties and sixties. Armand Duportal, the most prominent party leader, who was fifty-four years old in 1868, had first become active in local republican politics back in 1832 as a writer for the Patriot of July. The group of journalists who wrote and edited the republican newspaper Emancipation, revived in July of 1868, included younger, more radical men like Jean Passerieu (dit Ariste), Pierre Ducassb, Louis Dage, and Jean Magre (dit Gentry), all of whom were in their late twenties. Although a new generation of younger militants gained a foothold at the party newspaper, an older group of Republican party leaders, who shared a different set of generational experiences, retained control of most positions of political power taken over by republicans as a result of the party’s electoral victories during the 1860s. Working-Class Mobilization and the Republican Revival

The republican revival of the late 1860s was not limited solely to the electoral arena. Local workers also became increasingly politically mobilized during the 1860s, forming new organizations, launching rebellious collective actions, and once again turning the streets of the city into arenas of political confrontation. After 1868 there were regular political gatherings of workers in the faubourgs Saint-Cyprien and Saint-Etienne, numerous working-class republican electoral gatherings to discuss issues and candidates,43 and a large number of strike meetings to discuss grievances and plan strikes. During the summer of 1868 a strike wave swept Toulouse, beginning in May with a successful strike by the city’s stonecutters. The next few months witnessed strikes in fourteen different trades and strike threats from another ten trades. The Repu­ blican party supported these strikes and the authorities suspected the party of giving financial aid to striking workers. In several strikes, workers used republican songs, slogans, and symbols. The hatmakers at the Hispa-Boquet factory, who went on strike in January 1865, sang the republican anthem, La Marseillaise, in their factory the week before going out on strike. In September 1868 local tailors announced their plans to strike in the republican newspaper Emancipation and during the December 1869 strike of cabinetmakers, Republican party leader SaintGresse served as a lawyer for the strikers. During a labor arbitration board session of 1869, the authorities discovered that several prominent Republican party leaders had contributed to the shoemakers’ trade association. The workers who appeared before the board threatened to bring their case to the Emanciaption if the board failed to rule in their

210

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

favor. During the tobacco workers’ strike of May 1870, the promise of the authorities to meet the workers’ demand for a change in factory directors was not enough; the 1,200 striking workers refused to return to their jobs until Emancipation printed the news of the departure of the factory director from the city. In July 1870 thirty-seven bakers, chosen to represent their trade, arrived at the meeting hall where the negotiations with employers were to take place .singing the Marseillaise. The commission investigating the causes of Toulouse’s revolutionary Commune of 1871 reported that during the final years of the Second Empire strikes had helped to politicize workers and that the Republican party had made great use of strikes to win over workers to its cause. “It is easy to understand the link which ties strikes to politics,” reported the Commission. “Workers who have set down the law for their employers are quite ready to believe that they can do the same, if they wish, for all in positions of authority, including the government. Also, political parties did not fail to exploit strikes to their benefit....”44 The new liberalized laws on the press also provided the Republican party with an opportunity to recruit working-class support. Police reported that the revived Emancipation found “numerous adherents in the working-class” and that free daily issues were distributed to work­ shops and working-class cafes.45 The newspaper, which now espoused a Proudhonian socialist political line, had seven hundred subscribers in 1868 and sold several hundred issues each day on the streets. By the end of the Second Empire, Emancipation had become the largest selling newspaper in the city, increasing its predominantly working-class readership to three thousand by 1871. As was the case during the latter years of the July Monarchy, the growing political mobilization of the city’s working class drove repub­ lican politics outside the confines of the electoral arena into the streets. In March 1868 local workers responded violently to government efforts to reform conscription laws. Following the victory of the Prussian army against the Austrians at Sadowa in July 1866, the French state began to reexamine its system of military recruitment. At the end of 1866, a special military commission headed by Marshal Niel was appointed to work on military reforms. A new law was passed in late January 1868, after fourteen months of debate and disagreement. The law maintained a draft lottery and existing exemptions, increased the overall length of service to nine years but decreased the time of active duty, and allowed those who were wealthy to purchase replacements in the event that they were selected by the lottery. The new law also created a Mobile Guard, a reserve corps composed of young men who had not been selected by the

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

i

211

lottery, had been exempted from active duty for nonmedical reasons, or had purchased replacements to avoid active duty.*6 Toulouse’s Republican party organized a campaign of opposition to the new reforms, portraying them as part of the government’s plan to provoke a new war.47 On the evening of March 9, a crowd of over two thousand demonstrators gathered in front of Toulouse’s city hall to protest the new draft law and sing the Marseillaise. Another crowd gathered in front of the prefecture, where the office of the draft board was located. After police tried to arrest two young men for singing the Marseillaise, the crowd attacked the prefecture, tearing apart the office of the central police commissioner and destroying police records. Led by a red flag, the demonstrators then paraded through the city amid shouts of “Long Live the Republic,” “Down with the Empire!” They smashed streetlights and broke the windows of several public buildings before police and troops arrived to disperse them. A crowd also attacked the residence of the mayor Filliol, throwing paving stones at the building and attempting to break down the door. The next day, May 10, almost all of the city’s workshops and factories were empty, as workers prepared for another day of confrontation. That afternoon, crowds of protestors gathered in front of the prefecture and city hall. They were soon dis­ persed by police and troops. That evening corteges of young men from the faubourgs Saint-Michel and Saint-Cyprien gathered in front of city hall. After singing the Marseillaise a cortege of approximately two hundred and fifty young men followed by a crowd of around fifteen hundred persons marched through the streets behind a red flag, first attacking the Cannes marketplace and then police headquarters. On the following day, March 11, after only fifty of three hundred eligible young men showed up at the prefecture to register, a large crowd gathered in front of the prefecture to shouts of “Down with NielL” Young workers marched through the streets of the faubourg Saint-Cyprien with a red flag and constructed barricades from overturned carts. Another group of rioters broke street lamps on the place des Carmes and a third group marched from the city hall to the law school, where they broke into the building and destroyed a statue of the Emperor. Troops were called in to dismantle the SaintCyprien barricades and a display of military force put an end to the disorders. Soldiers occupied the bridges connecting the faubourg SaintCyprien to the center of the city, artillery was moved in to protect the city haU and prefecture, and troops were stationed at strategic points throughout the city.48 The vast majority (89%) of the seventy-six persons listed in police and judicial records as having been arrested during the conscription riots

212

Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism

were workers. Seventy-one percent of these workers were artisans.4’ More specifically, police and judicial records identify forty-eight artisans, a waiter, four dockworkers, twelve day laborers, three slaughterhouse workers, two law students, a shopkeeper, three agricultural workers, and two persons with no listed occupations as having been arrested during the riots. None of the workers arrested had previously appeared in police surveillance or arrest records for political activities and 88% of the workers arrested were under thirty years of age. This suggests that a new generation of workers provided recruits for the struggle against the Second Empire during the late 1860s, few of whom had seen action in earlier republican struggles of the July Monarchy and Second Republic. The artisanal workers who were arrested during the riots were drawn from eighteen different trades, but the five trades that accounted for the largest number of arrests — joining, cabinetmaking, foundry working, baking, and shoemaking — provided more than half (56%) of all artisanal militants. Local authorities contended that the conscription law was merely a pretext for the disorders and that the “socialist passions” of the working class, aroused by high food prices, were the real cause. These riots, noted one judicial official, “have brought to light the republican aspirations which have never ceased to exist among the working class.”50 Another official remarked that the events revealed the “blind prejudices and persistence of bad instincts among the lower classes”.51 The authorities also noted with apprehension the symbols and slogans of class warfare which accompanied the riots. Police reported frequent shouts of “Down with the rich!” from demonstrators and the slogan “jobs or blood” was written on several walls. Among those sought by police for their role in the Saint-Cyprien disorders was a young worker named Berthier who prepared a red flag for the barricades, using as dye pigs blood from the slaughterhouse where he worked. Berthier reportedly remarked to his comrades that he wanted to slit the throats of the bourgeoisie, not just those of pigs.” Working-class protest did not disappear with the suppression of the conscription riots. At the end of March 1868, a large number of Toulousain workers, attracted by posters and letters of invitation, gath­ ered at the village of Lardenne, on the west bank just beyond city limits, to discuss the price of bread. The authorities, fearing violence, circulated troops throughout the city, prohibited movement from the west bank into the center city, and stationed troops at the city limits to disperse any large crowds of workers entering the city.” In May 1868, police reported rumors that local workers from various trades were planning to meet at a

Political Repression and Working-Class Politics

213

banquet on the outskirts of the city and then march on the city armed with cudgels.54 Local authorities took these rumors seriously, and the commanding general reported that he had three companies and one platoon ready to handle any possible disorders. The summer of 1869 witnessed another outburst of popular protest after republican candidates were again defeated in legislative elections by rural votes from the surrounding department after winning a very sizable majority in the city of Toulouse. The announcement of the election results at Toulouse touched off three days of rioting, marked by several confrontations between demonstrators and police. On the eve­ ning of May 24, 1869 a crowd of five to six thousand persons gathered on the place du Capitole in front of city hall to hear the results of the elections. After shouts of “Long Live Duportal” and chants of the Mar­ seillaise, police attempts to disperse the crowd met stiff resistance, in­ cluding a hail of paving stones. The following evening a crowd attacked the soldiers guarding the courthouse on the place Saint-Etienne and then marched to the home of the Imperial candidate Campaigno to chants of the Marseillaise. A crowd also gathered that evening in front of the city hall, where thirteen persons were arrested in a clash between demon­ strators and troops. The evening of March 26 witnessed another con­ frontation between troops and demonstrators in front of city hall after a crowd refused orders to disperse. A crowd of three to four hundred persons, who had been driven off the place du Capitole by troops, gathered in front of Duportal’s home and at the headquarters of Eman­ cipation to sing the Marseillaise.” Police and judicial records on the electoral riots of 1869 reveal that, as was the case in the conscription riots of 1868, the majority (84%) of the 181 persons arrested were workers and most of these workers (66%) were artisans. Police and judicial records list one hundred and one artisans, fifteen clerks, four nonartisanal factory workers, five transport workers, six domestic servants, four waiters, nine day laborers, four artists and musicians, a vendor, a tutor, an ex-policeman, and a wallpaper hanger.56 Also included among those arrested were two proprietaires, three rentiers, six whosesale merchants, a doctor, a cafd owner, four shopkeepers, a master joiner, seven students, and four gardeners. As in the 1868 riots, artisanal militants were drawn from a large number of different trades (28) but five trades — shoemaking, joining, carpentry, masonry, and stonecutting — accounted for more than half (52%) of the artisans who were arrested. As was also the case in 1868, most of the workers arrested (70%) were under thirty years of age. They belonged to a generation whose formative years politically were and Anxiety (Oxford, 1977), p. 170. 21. Theodore Zeldin, France 1848-1945: Intellect, Taste, and Anxiety (Oxford, ' 1977), p. 165. '■ 22. Alain Plessis, De la fete imperiale au mur des federes, 1852-1871 (Paris, | 1973), pp. 193-96, 205. 23. Maxwell R. Kelso, “The French Labor Movement during the Last Years of the Second Empire,” in Donald McKay, ed., Essays in the History of Modern Europe (New York, 1936), pp. 98-113. 24. Theodore Zeldin, Conflicts in French Society (London, 1970), p. 70.

I

I

306

Notes to Pages 201-215

25. Edward Shorter and Charles Tilly, Strikes in France, 1830-1968 (New York, 1974), p. 180. 26. A.N.: BB18 1769; A.D.: 4M66, M196. 27. A.N.; F 12 4503; A.M.: epi 43. 28. A.D.: 4M87. 29. A.D.: 4M74. 30. Alphonse Bremond, Histoire de I’election municipale de 1865 (Toulouse, 1867). 31. A.N.: BB3O389. 32. Alphonse Bremond, “Circulaire de Dominique Petit,” in Histoire de I’election municipale de 1865. 33. Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Toulouse: Stance du 19 fevrier 1866. 34. A.N.: BB”389. 35. Alphonse Bremond, “Circulaire de Dominque Petit,” in Histoire de I’election municipale de 1865. 36. A.D.: 4M87. 37. Emancipation, 25 October 1868. 38. A.N.: BB » 390. 39. A.N.: BB30 389. 40. Paul de Remusat, De la dissolution du conseil municipal de la ville de Toulouse (Paris, 1867). 41. A.N.: BB" 389. 42. A.N.: BB3O39O. 43. A.N.: BB 18 1768, 1793; BB30 390; F '• III 14. 44. A.N.: C2884. 45. A.D.: 4M 87. 46. Jean Casevitz, Une loi manquee: la loi Niel (1866-1868) (Paris, n.d.). 47. A.N.: BB30 390. 48. These events are documented in: A.N.; BB 18 1766; BB30 390; Jean Casevitz, Une loi manquee. 49. A.M.: epi 43; A.N.: 212U 70; BB 18 1766. 50. A.N.: BB 18 1766. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid. 56. A.N.: 223U 25; A.M.: epi 43 tr 4. 57. A.N.: 223U 24. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. A.N.: 223U 25. 61. A.M.: epi 43. 62. Emancipation, May 22, 1869. 63. A.N.: BBM 390. 64. A.N.: F" III 14; BB 30 390 65. A.N.: F " III 4; BB 30 39Q

I

i

i Notes to Pages 215-230

307

i 66. A.N.: F " III 4. 67. Justin Rigaut, Confidences d’un ouvrier (Toulouse, 1869). 68. Emancipation, August 1868. 69. A.N.: BB l! 1795. 70. Rene Amaneiu, “Elections legislatives et plebiscites a Toulouse sous le second empire,” Annales du Midi 62 (avril 1950); 151-80. 71. A.N.: BBw390. 72. A.N.: BB » 390.

Chapter 8 1. For a discussion of the historical development of the world capitalist system see Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System (New York, 1974). For an analysis of social revolutions which emphasizes the importance of the inter­ national state system see Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolution (New York, 1979). 2. A.D.: 4M89. 3. Ibid. 4. A.N.: BB30 390. 5. Journal de Toulouse, August 12, 1870. 6. Gareth Stedman Jones, “Society and Politics at the Beginning of the World Economy,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 1 (1977): pp. 77-92. 7. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871 (New York, 1973), p. 57. 8. Ibid, p. 54. 9. Ibid, p. 64. 10. Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, Histoire de la commune de 1871 (Paris, 1969), | IP-5* 11. Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in Karl Marx and Frederick .Engels: Selected Works (New York, 1968), p. 275. 12. Ibid, p. 272. 13. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 59. 14. Ibid, p. 69. 15. Alistair Home, The Terrible Year (London, 1971), p. 24. 16. Ibid, p. 34. 17. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 71. 1 18. Ibid, pp. 72-74. t 19. A.D.: 4M94-Enquete Resseguier sur les actes du gouvernement de la defense rruttionale, December 1872. 20. A.N.: C2884-Enquete Carol sur les causes de /’insurrection du 18 Mars ; 11871, August 1871. 21. A.D.: 4M94-Enquete Resseguier. 22. A.D.: 12M34. 23. A.N.: F12 4503. 24. A.N.; C28?>4-Enquete Carol. Ibid. I 25. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid.

!

j

(

i

I

I ■

308

\

■

J

Notes to Pages 230-239

29. Ibid. 30. A.D.: 4M94-£n,juere Resseguier. 31. A.N.: C23M-Enquete Carol. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. A.M.; Registre de Controle-Garde Nationale Sedentaire de Toulouse. 36. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 62. 37. Ibid, p. 56. 38. Emancipation, September 19, 1870; A.N.; C2334-Enquete Carol. 39. A.D.: 4M94. 40. Emancipation, September 24, 1870. 41. Emancipation, September 19, 1870. 42. A.N.: C2884-Ligue de Sud-Ouest, Comite de Salut Public, 1 November 1870. 43. A.D.: 4M.94-Enquete Resseguier. 44. Ibid. 45. A.D.: 223U26. 46. Emancipation, October 22, 1870. 47. Emancipation, September 27, 1870. 48. Archives de la Guerre: Lu 135; cited in Jeanne Gaillard, Communes de province, commune de Paris, 1870-1871 (Paris, 1971), p. 35. 49. Emancipation, October 12, 1870. 50. Ibid. 51. A.N.: C2334-Enquete Carol. 52. The biographies of these nineteen individuals were compiled from the following sources: A.N.: F" III 14; BB18 1793. BB" 390, C 2884. A.D.: 4M 69, 74, 76, 77, 89, 90, 94; 223U 26; WU1663. 53. At the trial, which took place in 1873, Sarrans was convicted to four months imprisonment while Gaubert was acquited because the law banning the International was not retroactive. 54. A.D.: 4M94-Enquete Resseguier. 55. A.D.: 4M94. 56. At the end of September the prefects had been given the power to dissolve any city council. This measure, though designed to strength national unity and central state authority had contradictory results in that several radical prefects, including those at Toulouse and Marseille, used their enhanced power to strengthen local radical opposition to the policies of the Government of National Defense. 57. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune, p. 84. 58. Jeanne Gaillard, Communes de province, p. 44. 59. Ibid, 45-46. 60. A.D.; 4M94-Enquete Resseguier. 61. Emancipation, October 30, 1870. 62. A.D.: 4M94. 63. A.N.: C2334-Enquete Carol. 64. A.D.: 4M94. 65. A.D.: 4M94-Engue(e Resseguier. 66. A.D.: 4M94.

Notes to Pages 239-249

I

-XL

309

67. A.D.: 4M94. 68. A.D.: wU3797. 69. A.D.: 4M94. 70. A.D.: 4M94-Enquete Resseguier. 71. A.N.: Conseil Municipal-Deliberations. 72. A.N.: C2884. 73. Ibid. 74. A.N.: C2ii4-Enquete Carol. 75. A.D.: 12M34. 76. A.D.: 4M89. 77. A.M.: Proces Verbaux-Police Municipale. 78. Ibid. 79. A.M.: Conseil Municipal-Deliberations. 80. Ibid. 81. A.D.: 4bA94-Enquete Resseguier. 82. A.N.: wU1663. 83. Ibid. 84. A.D.: 4b494-Enquete Resseguier. 85. A.D.: wU1663; Ducasse was later convicted in August 1871 to fifteen months in prison and a fine of one hundred francs while Joumet and Latreille were acquited. 86. A.D.: wU3797. 87. A.M.: Proces Verbaux-Police Municipal. 88. Ibid. 89. Emancipation, January 22, 1870. 90. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 105. 91. Ibid. 92. Jeanne Gaillard, Communes de provinces, p. 46. 93. A.M.: Conseil Municipal-Deliberations. 94. Emancipation, January 30, 1871. 95. Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Eng­ les: Selected Works, p. 280. 96. Emancipation, February 3, 1871. 97. A.D.: 4M94. 98. Ibid. 99. Emancipation, February 9, 1870. 100. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 130. 101. Ibid, p. 111. 102. Ibid, p. 129. 103. Ibid, p. 161. 104. For a more detailed discussion of the Paris commune see: Prosper-Oliver Lissagaray, Histoire de la Commune de 1871; Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871; Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works; Jean Bruhat, Jean Dautry, and Emile Tersen, La Commune de 1871 (Paris, 1970). 105. A N.: C28S4-Enquete Carol. 106. Ibid. 107. A.D.: 4M95. 108. A.N.: C2K4-Enquete Carol.

I

V-

i:

310

Notes to Pages 250-259

109. Armand Duportal, La Commune a Toulouse, simple expose des faits (Toulouse, 1871). p. 9. 110. A.D.: wU1663. 111. Armand Duportal, La Commune 'a Toulouse p. 9. 112. Ibid. 113. Emancipation, March 22, 1871. 114. A.N.: C2884-Cours d'Assises des Basses Pyrenees, Affaire des troubles de Toulouse, Audience du 3 Aout-1871, Acte d’Accusation. 115. Ibid. 116. Ibid. 117. Emancipation, March 26, 1871. 118. Armand Duportal, La Commune a Toulouse, p. 41. 119. Emancipation, March 29, 1871. 120. A.M.: Registre de Contrble-Garde Nationale Sedentaire de Toulouse. 121. Armand Duportal, La Commune a Toulouse, p. 42. 122. Ibid. 123. A.D.: 4M94. 124. A.N.: C2884-Courr d’Assises-Affaire des troubles de Toulouse-Acte d’Accusation. 125. Ibid. 126. A.D.: Jour 37. 127. A.N.: C2884-Cours d’Assises-Affaire des troubles de Toulouse-Acte d’Accusation. 128. G. A. de Puybusque, La Prise d’armes contre la commune a Toulouse, le 27 mai 1871 (Toulouse, 1921), pp. 6-13. 129. Ibid, p. 13. 130. Emancipation, April 9, 1871. 131. Emancipation, April 10, 1871. 132. A.N.: CliM-Enquete Carol. 133. Ibid. 134. At the trial in 1873 Auguste Mason admitted to belonging to the local branch of the First International in 1866, but denied membership after March 1872, after which the International was outlawed. For an account of the trial see: F. Massip, Proces de I’lnternationale, compte-rendu (Toulouse, 1873); Nicole Rouja, “L’Opinion toulousaine en face de la premiere Internationale,” These pour le diplome d’etudes, Uni versite de Toulouse. 135. Ibid. 136. A.N.: C2884-Enquete Carole. 137. Ibid. 138. Ibid. 139. Jeanne Gaillard, Communes de province, p. 163. 140. A.N.: C2Z84-Enquete Carol. 141. Emancipation, March 29, 1871. 142. A.N.: C28M-Enquete Carol. 143. A.D.: 4M94-Enquete Resseguier. 144. A.N.: C28i4-Enquete Carol. 145. Ibid. 146. Emancipation, March 23, 1871. 147. Emancipation, March 24, 1871.

Notes to Pages 259-270

311

148. A.N.: C2884-Enquete Carol. 149. Ibid. 150. Ibid. 151. Ibid. 152. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 203. 153. Armand Duportal, La Commune a Toulouse, p. 5. 154. G. A de Puybusque, La prise des armes, p. 5. 155. Emancipation, March 29, 1871. 156. A.N.: C28M-Enquete Carol. 157. Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works, p. 277. 158. Ibid, p. 302. 159. Ibid, p.303. 160. Ibid. 161. Ibid, p. 304. 162. Charles Tilly, “Getting It Together in Burgundy,” Working Paper for the Center for Research on Social Organization, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1978. 163. Georges Lefebvre, The French Revolution from 1793 to 1799 (New York, 1964), pp. 265-68, 303-04. 164. A.D.: Jour 37. 165. Ibid. 166. Stewart Edwards, ed., The Communards of Paris, 1871 (London, 1973), p.9. 167. Jeanne Gaillard, Communes de province, p. 153. 168. A.N.: C2884. 169. Emancipation, September 24, 1870. 170. A.D.: 4M94. 171. Emancipation, March 29, 1871. 172. For such a portrayal see Louis M. Greenberg, Sisters of Liberty (Cambridge, Mass., 1971). 173. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, De la capacite politique des classes ouvriires (Paris, 1924). 174. F. Massip, Proces de I’Internationale, compte-rendu (Toulouse, 1873). 175. Emancipation, January 24, 1872. 176. Emancipation, January 26, 1872.

f I

I f I

i

Chapter 9 1. In the words of Antonio Gramsci, the French bourgeoisie has not yet succeeded in “posing all the questions around which the struggle rages ... on a ‘universal’ plane [such that] ... the development and expansion of the particular group is conceived of, and presented, as being the motor force of a universal expansion, of a development of all the ‘national energies’. ...’’ See Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York, 1971), p. 182. 2. Gramsci notes that such resistance by the bourgeoisie to the concessions •hat later provided the foundations of bourgeois hegemony was also present at the time of the French Revolution. The Jacobins, he writes, “literally imposed themselves on the French bourgeoisie. .. .*’ The staunch resistance of the old

I

I

■

312

Notes to Pages 271-289

social forces along with the international threat made possible the emergence of a political elite which “did not concern itself solely with corporate reform but tended to conceive of the bourgeoisie as the hegemonic group of all the popular forces...See Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 77-78. 3. Karl Marx, Capital, 3 vols. (New York, 1967): 71-83. 4. A.M.: 2 F 4. 5. Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 (New York, 1964). 6. Adam Przeworski, “Material Bases of Consent: Economics and Politics in a Hegemonic System,” in Political Power and Social Theory, ed. Maurice Zeitlin (Greenwich, Conn., 1980), pp. 21-66. 7. Ernesto Laclau, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory (London, 1979), p. 177. 8. A.N.: BB30 389. 9. Louis Althusser, “Contradiction and Overdetermination,” in For Marx (London, 1977), p. 99. 10. Maurice Godelier, Rationality and Irrationality in Economics (New York, 1966), pp. 77-81. 11. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 184. 12. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871 (New York, 1973), pp. 346-48. 13. Sanford Elwitt, The Making of the Third Republic (Baton Rouge, La., 1975), p. 9. 14. Ibid., p. 23. 15. Ibid., pp. 16, 171. 16. Ibid., pp. 136-69. 17. Ibid., p. 58. 18. Ibid., p. 177. 19. Ibid., p. 259. 20. Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871, p. 353.

f

i 1 !

Bibliography

S' T

Aguet, Jean-Pierre. Contribution a I’etude du mouvement ouvrier francais'. les greves sous la monarchic de juillet (1830-1847). Geneva: E. Droz, 1954. Agulhon, Maurice. Une ville ouvriere au temps du socialisme utopique. Paris: Mouton, 1970.

----- . La Vie sociale en provence interieure au lendemain de la revolution. Paris: Society des etudes robespierristes, 1970. ----- . La Republique au village. Paris: Pion, 1970. ----- . 1848 ou I’apprentissage de la republique. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973. ----- . Le Cercle dans la franco bourgeoise 1810-1848. Paris: A. Colin, 1977,

Althusser, Louis. For Marx. Translated by Ben Brewster. London: Pantheon Books, 1977.

Althusser, Louis, and Balibar, Etienne. Reading Capital. Translated by Ben Brewster. London: New Left Books, 1970. Amanieu, Nicole. “La propagande revolutionnaire a Toulouse de 1871 a 1885.” Le Mouvement anarchiste a Toulouse a la fin du XIX’ siecle 7 (1971).

Amanieu, Rene. “Elections legislatives et plebiscites a Toulouse sous le second empire.” Annales du Midi 62 (avril 1950): 151-80. Amann, Peter. “Writings on the Second French Republic.” Journal of Modern History 34, no. 4 (December 1962): 409-29.

----- . Revolution and Mass Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Amouroux, Lucie, and Clergeau, Guy. “L’Opinion legitimiste en face de la politique de la monarchie de juillet.” Memoire de mailrise, University de Toulouse, 1971. 313

I

314

Bibliography

Anderson, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: New Left Books, 1976. ------ . “The Antimonies of Antonio Gramsci.” New Left Review 100 (November 1976-January 1977): 5-80. ------ . Arguments within English Marxism. London: New Left Books, 1980.

Ariste, Louis, and Braud, Louis. Histoire populaire de Toulouse. Toulouse: Bureaux du Midi Ripublicain, 1898.

Armengaud, Andre. “La Question du ble dans la Haute-Garonne au milieu du XIX' sifecle.” Extrait du recueil de la societe de la revolution de 1848. (1954). ------ . “Le Fin des forges catalanes dans les Pyrenees ariegeoises,” Annales E. S. C. (1953). ------ . “A propos des origines du sous-developpement dans le sud-ouest.” Annales du Midi 1 (1960): 73-81. ------ . Les Populations de Vest Aquitaine au debut de I’epoque contemporaine. Paris: Mouton, 1961. Audiganne, Armand. Les Populations ouvri'eres et les industries de la France. New York: B. Franklin, 1970.

Baughman, John. “The French Banquet Campaign of 1847-1848.” Journal of Modern History 31 (March 1959): 1-15. S

Beauroy, J.; Bertrand, M.; and Gargan, E. The Wolf and the Lamb: Popular Culture in France from the Old Regime to the Twentieth Century. Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri, 1977.

Bendix, Reinhard. Nation-Building and Citizenship. New York: Wiley, 1969. '

Benoist, Luc. Le Compagnonnage et les metiers. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1975.

Bezucha, Robert. The Lyon Uprising of 1834. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­ versity Press, 1974.

Birlanstein, Leonard. “The Advocates of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century, 1750-1799.” Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1973. Blaquiere, Henri. Le Budget d’un ouvrier toulousain sous la monarchic de juillet (essai de calcul). Toulouse: Bibliotheque Municipal de Toulouse, n d. Blaquiere, Henri; Castan, Yves; and Gerard, Pierre. Documents toulousains sur I’histoire de France: les revolutions (1789-1852). Toulouse: Conseil general de la Haute-Garonne, 1958.

Bleton, Pierre. La Vie sociale sous le second empire. Paris: Les Editions ouvrieres, 1963. Boyte, Harry C. The Backyard Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980. ------ . “Populism and the Left.” democracy 2 (April 1981): 53-66.

Bibliography

315

Braudel, Fernand. Capitalism and Material Life. Translated by Miriam Kochan. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. Bremond, Alphonse. Annales de la ville de Toulouse au XIX' siecle. Toulouse: J. Pradel et Blanc, 1865.

!I

------ . Histoire de I’election municipale de 1865. Toulouse: Ph. Montaubin, 1867. ------ . Histoire du coup d’etat dans le departement de la Haute-Garonne. Toulouse: Hebrail, Durand, 1870.

Brenner, Robert. “The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of NeoSmithian Marxism.” New Left Review 104 (July-August 1977): 25-94. Bruhat, Jean. “Le Mouvement ouvrier framjais au debut du XIX' siecle et les survivances d’ancien regime.” In Ordres et Classes, edited by D. Roche and C. '' E. Labrousse, pp. 235-47. Paris: Mouton, 1973. Bruhat, Jean; Dautry, Jean; and Tersen, Emile. La Commune de 1871. Paris: Editions sociales, 1970. Brunet, Roger. Les Campagnes toulousaines. Toulouse: Faculte des lettres et sciences humaines, 1965.

Cameron, Rondo, ed. Essays in French Economic History. Homewood, Ill.: R. D. Irwin, 1970.

Casanova, G. “Quelquiles aspects de la vie economique a Toulouse (1856-1920).” Memoire de maftrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1966.

Casevitz, Jean. Une loi manquee: la loi Niel (1866-1868). Paris: Imprimeries Oberthur, n.d. Cathala, Yvette. Les Epidemies de cholera a Toulouse au XIX' siecle. Toulouse: V" Lion, 1962.

Chabert, M. A. Essai sur les mouvements des prix et des revenus en France de 1789 a 1820. Paris: Librairie de Medicis, 1945.

Chevalier, Louis. Laboring Classes and Dangerous Classes in Paris during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Frank Jellinek. New York: H. Fertig, 1973.

Claeys, Louis. “Le Compagnonnage a Toulouse de 1800 a 1850.” Mimoire de maftrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1969. Clawson, Daniel. Bureaucracy and the Labor Process. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980.

£

Cobb, Richard. The Police and the People. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Cobban, Alfred. “The Vocabulary of Social History.” Political Science Quarterly 71, no. 1 (March 1956): 1-17.

----- . A History of Modern France. 3 vols. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. 1965. ------. “The Middle Class in France, 1815-1848.” French Historical Studies 5, no. 1 (Spring 1967): 39-52.

■

V I

i

316

Bibliography

Collins, Irene. The Government and the Newspaper Press in France, 1814-1881. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.

z Coornaert, Emile. Les Compagnonnages en France du moyen age a nos jours. Paris: Editions ouvrieres, 1966. Coppolani, Jean. Toulouse: etude de geographic urbaine. Toulouse: Privat, 1959.

------ . “Les Lotissements dans [’extension de la ville de Toulouse.” Revue geographique des Pyrenees et du sud-ouest 14, no. 2-3 (1973). Cot, Genevieve. “Sur les troubles A la faculty de droit de Toulouse en mai 1839.” Annales du Midi 82, no. 97 (avril-juin 1970): 186-90.

Courbon, Jean-Paul. “Delinquance et population mouvante i Toulouse au milieu du XIX ' sidcle.” Annales du Midi 86, no. 119 (1974): 445-70. Darmon, J. J. Le Colportage de librairie sous le second empire. Paris: Pion, 1972. Daumard, Adeline. Les Bourgeois de Paris au XIX ‘ siecle. Paris: Flammarion, 1970.

------ , ed. Les Fortunes en France au XIX' siecle. Paris: Mouton, 1973.

Delaye, Jules. Rapport sur les societes de secours mutuels d’ouvriers. Toulouse: Pradel et Blanc, 1862.

Delorme, Emmanuel. Etude sur les origines du quartier des Amidonniers. Toulouse: Imprimerie du Sud-Ouest, 1924. de Planet, Edmond. Travail des enfants dans les manufactures. Toulouse: C. Douladoure, 1867.

de Puybusque, G. A. La Prise d’armes contre la commune a Toulouse, le 27 mars 1871. Toulouse: Librairie Marqueste, 1921. de Remusat, Paul. De la dissolution du conseil municipal de la ville de Toulouse. Paris: J. Claye, 1867. Dobb, Maurice. Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London: G. Routledge & sons, 1946.

Dolleans, Edouard. Histoire du mouvement ouvrier: 1830 a nosjours. Vol. 1. Paris: A. Colin, 1953. Droulers, Paul. Action pastorale et problemes sociaux sous la monarchic de juillet chez Mgr. d’Astros. Paris: J. Vrin, 1954. Dunham, Arthur. The Industrial Revolution in France, 1815-1848. New York: Exposition Press, 1955.

Duportal, Armand. La Commune a Toulouse, simple expose des faits. Toulouse: Paul Savy, 1871. Duveau, Georges. La Vie ouvri'ere en France sous le second empire. Paris: Gallimard, 1946.

------ . 1848: The Making ofa Revolution. Translated by Anne Carter. New York: Vintage Books, 1968.

Bibliography

317

Edwards, Stewart. The Paris Commune 1871. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1973.

------ , ed. The Communards of Paris, 1871. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973.

Elwitt, Sanford. The Making of the Third Republic. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1975. Esping-Anderson, Gosta; Friedland, Roger; and Wright, Erik. “Modes of Class Struggle and the Capitalist State.” Kapitalistate 4-5 (Summer 1976): 186-220.

Eychenne, M"' . “Le Commerce interieur de Toulouse sous le second empire d’aprds 1’annuaire de la Haute-Garonne.” Mimoire de maftrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1966.

Fabre, Daniel, and Lacrois, Jacques. La Vie quotidienne des paysans du Languedoc. Paris: Hachette, 1973. Fasel, Georges. “The Wrong Revolution: French Republicanism in 1848.”. French Historical Studies 7, no. 4 (Fall 1974): 654-77. Fauresse, M. “L’lndustrie de la chausseure 4 Toulouse.” Revue geographique des Pyrenees et du sud-ouest 4, no. 3 (juillet 1933).

Festy, Octave. Le Mouvement ouvrier au debut de la monarchie de juillet (1830-1834). Paris: E. Comely, 1908.

Fohlen, Claude. “The Industrial Revolution in France.” In Essays in French Economic History, edited by Rondo Cameron, pp. 201-25. Homewood, Ill.: R. D. Irwin, 1970. Forstenzer, Thomas. “Bureaucrats under Stress: French Attorneys General and Prefects and the Fall of the Second Republic (10 December 1848-2 December 1851).” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1973.

Forster, Robert. The Nobility of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960.

Foster, John. Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974. Foster-Carter, Aidan. “The Modes of Production Controversy.” New Left Review 107 (January-February 1978): 47-79.

■

Fouet, Rose Marie. “Les Corporations de metiers a Toulouse au XVIII' siicle.” Memoire de maitrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1974. FourcassiS, Jean, line ville a I’epoque romantique: Toulouse. Paris: Pion, 1953. Fournier, Pierre-Leon. Le Second Empire et la legislation ouvriere. Paris: L. Larose et L. Tenin, 1911. Freche, Georges et Genevidve. Les Prix des grains, des vins, et des legumes a Toulouse (1486-1868). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1967.

Furet, Francois, and Sachs, Vladimir. “La Croissance de 1’alphabetisation en France, XVII' A XIX' socles.” Annates: E. S. C. 29, no. 3 (mai-juin 1974): 715-21.

I i

!

> ■

J

318

Bibliography

Gaillard, Jeanne. Communes de province, commune de Paris 1870-1871. Paris: Flammarion, 1971. Girard, Louis. La Garde nationale. Paris: Pion, 1964.

------ . La II * Republique. Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1968. Godechot, Jacques, ed. La Revolution de 1848 a Toulouse et dans la HauteGaronne. Toulouse: Prefecture de la Haute-Garonne, 1948.

Godelier, Maurice. Rationality and Irrationality in Economics. Translated by Brian Pierce. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966. Gold, David; Lo, Clarence; and Wright, Erik. “Some Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State.” Monthly Review 27, nos. 5-6 (Sep­ tember-October, 1975): 29-43, 36-51. Gossez, Remi. “1848.” Le Mouvement social 79 (avril-juin 1972).

Goubert, Pierre. The Ancien Regime. Translated by Steve Cox. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Translated and edited by Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Greenberg, Louis M. Sisters of Liberty. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971. Gros, J. “Les Loges maconniques de Toulouse, 1740-1870.” La Revolution francaise 40 (1901): 234-70, 297-318. l/

Hanagan, Michael. “Artisan and Skilled Workers: The Problem of Definition.” International Labor and Working-Class History 12 (November 1977): 28-31.

------ . The Logic of Solidarity: A rtisans and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns, 1871-1914. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1980.

Hay, Douglas. “Property, Authority, and the Criminal Law.” In Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth Century England, edited by D. Hay, pp. 17-63. New York: Pantheon Books, 1975. Higgonett, Patrick. “La Composition de la Chambre des Deputes de 1827 a 1831.” Revue Historique 239 (1968): 351-79.

Higgs, David. “Lower Class Royalism in Toulouse.” Paper delivered at the Canadian Historical Association Meeting, June 1, 1971.

------ . Ultraroyalism in Toulouse. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. ------ . “Politics and Charity at Toulouse, 1750-1850.” In French Government and Society, 1500-1850, edited by John Bosher, pp. 191-207. London: Athlone Press, 1973. Hilton, Rodney et al. The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1976.

Bibliography

319 ■

Hobsbawn, Eric J. The Age of Revolution. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962.

------. The Age of Capital (1848-1875). New York: Scribner, 1975.

i

Hopkins, Terrance. “Notes on Class Analysis and the World System.” Review 1, no. 1 (Summer 1977): 68-72.

Home, Alistair. The Terrible Year. London: Macmillan, 1971. Hubert-Valleroux, Paul. Les Associations ouvrieres et les associations patronales. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1899. Jardin, A., and Tudesq, A. J. La France des notables: /’evolution generate 1815-1848. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973.

Johnson, Christopher, Utopian Communism in France. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 1974. ------. “Economic Change and Artisan Discontent: The Tailors’ History, 1800-1848.” In Revolution and Reaction, edited by Roger Price, pp. 87-114. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1975.

Jones, Gareth Stedman. Outcast London. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. ------ . “Society and Politics at the Beginning of the World Economy.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 1 (1977): 77-92. Jorre, Georges. “Le Commerce des grains et de la minoterie A Toulouse.” Revue geographique des Pyrenees et du sud-ouest 4, no. 1 (janvier 1933): 30-72.

Kaplow, Jeffry. The Names of Kings: The Parisian Laboring Poor in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Kelso, Maxwell R. “The French Labor Movement during the Last Years of the Second Empire.” In Essays in the History of Modern Europe, edited by Donald C. McKay. New York: Harper and brothers, 1936.

Kemp, Tom. Economic Forces in French History. London: Dobson, 1971.

Labat, Patricia. “Jeux, spectacles, et divertissements a Toulouse au XVIII' siecle.” Memoire de maitrise, University de Toulouse, 1972. Labrousse, C. E. La Crise de Teconomie francaise a la fin de I’ancien regime et au debut de la revolution. Paris: Presses univesitaires de France, 1944. Labrousse, Ernest. “Observations on a New History of Modem France.” New Left Review 86 (July-August 1974): 88-101.

Laclau, Ernesto. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. London: New Left Books, 1979.

Lagardelle, Hubert. L’Evolution des syndicats ouvriers en France de Tinterdiction a /’obligation. Paris: Imprimerie de 1’Emancipatrice, 1901.

Landes, David. “The Statistical Study of French Crises.” Journal of Economic History 10, no. 2 (November 1950): 195-211.

t ■

320

Bibliography

------ . The Unbound Prometheus. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Laujoulet, E. L’Amelioration morale et materielle de la condition du travailleur. Toulouse: A. Chausin, 1848.

Laybax, Arlette. {/Opposition royaliste dans I’Haute-Garonne au debut de la III' republique.” Memoire de maftrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1972. Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution from 1793 to 1799. Translated by Elizabeth Evanson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Leibman, Robert. “Repressive Strategies and Working-Class Protest, Lyon 1848-1852.” Social Science History 4, no. I (February 1980): 33-55.

LeNan, Daniel, and Darmon, Norbert. Bibliographic de la presse franqaise politique et d’information generate. Paris: Bibliothique nationale, 1964. Lennie, Ian. “Social Change.” In Paper Tigers: An Introduction to the Critique of Social Theory, edited by Rod O’Donnell, Peter Stevens, and Ian Lennie, pp. 119-37. Pilot edition. Sydney, Australia, 1978.

Leonard, J. “L’exemple d’un categoric socio-professionnelle au XIX' siecle: les medecins franqais.” In Ordres et Classes, edited by D. Roche and C. E. Labrousse, pp. 221-35. Paris: Mouton, 1973.

Levasseur, E. Histoire des classes ouvri'eres et de I’industrie en France avant 1789. Paris: A. Rousseau, 1900-01. L’Huillier, Femand. La Lutte ouvriere a la fin du Second Empire. Paris: A. Colin, 1957. Lissagaray, Prosper-Olivier. Histoire de la commune de 1871. Paris: Maspero, 1969.

Lorwin, Vai. The French Labor Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer­ sity Press, 1954. Lukacs, Georg. History and Class Consciousness. Translated by Rodney Livingsone. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T Press, 1968.

Macpherson, C. B. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Maitron, Jean et al., eds. Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier franqais. Premiere partie: 1789-1864. 3 vols. Paris: Editions ouvridres, 1965.

Mandel, Ernest. Late Capitalism. Translated by Joris de Bres. London: New Left Books, 1975. Margadant, Ted. French Peasants in Revolt: The Insurrection of 1851. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Marglin, Steven. “What Do Bosses Do?: The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 60-112.

Markovitch, T. J. L’lndustrie franqaise de 1789 a 1964, conclusions generales. Paris: 1’Institut de science economique appliqude, 1966.

Bibliography

321

----- . Le Revenu industriel et artisanal sous la monarchic de juillet et le second empire. Paris: 1’Institute de science economique appliquee, 1967. ------- “The Dominant Sectors of French Industry.” In Essays in French Eco­ nomic History, edited by Rondo Cameron, pp. 226-44. Homewood, Ill.: R. D. Irwin, 1970. Marrus, Michael. “Modernization and Dancing in Rural France: From ‘La Bouree’ to ‘Le Fox-Trot’.” In The Wolfand the Lamb, edited by J. Beauroy, M. Bertrand, and E. Gargan, pp. 141-59. Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri, 1977.

Marty, Gabriel. Etienne Cabet et le proces des communistes a Toulouse en 1843. Toulouse: Imprimeries de Mazieres et Laporte, 1928.

Marx, Karl. Capital. 3 vols. Edited by Frederick Engels and translated by S. Moore and E. Aveling. New York: International Publishers, 1967. ------ . The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850. New York: International Publishers, 1964. ----- . “The Civil War in France.” In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1968. ------ . “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1968. ------ . Preface and Introduction to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Eco­ nomy. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976.

Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1968.

Massip. F. Proces de ITnternationale, compte-rendu. Toulouse: L. Lupiac, 1873. Mayer, Amo. “The Lower Middle Class as a Historical Problem.” Journal of Modern History 4 (September 1975): 409-36. Maynes, Mary Jo. “Schooling the Masses: A Comparative History of Education in France and Germany, 1750-1850.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan, 1977.

I

McDougall, Mary Lynn. “Consciousness and Community: The Workers of Lyon, 1830-1850.” Journal of Social History 12, no. 1 (Fall 1978): 129-45. •'

Merriman, John, ed. 1830 in France. New York: New Viewpoints, 1975.

i

------ . The Agony of the Republic. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1978. ------, ed. Consciousness and Class Experience in Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979. Merrington, John. “Theory and Practice in Gramsci’s Marxism.” In Western Marxism, A Critical Reader, edited by New Left Review, pp. 140-75. London: New Left Books, 1977. Michelet, Jules. The People. Translated by John McKay. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1973.

.1

I

322

Bibliography

Moore, Barrington, Jr. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.

Morazi, Charles. The Triumph of the Middle Classes. Translated by P. Wait and B. Ferryan. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966.

Moss, Bernard. The Origins of the French Labor Movement. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1976. Mottez, Bernard. Systemes de salaires et politiques patronales. Paris: Editions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1966.

Newman, Edgar. “The Blouse and the Frock Coat: The Alliance of the Common People of Paris with the Liberal Leadership in the Middle Class during the Last Years of the Bourbon Restoration in France.” Journal of Modern History 46, no. 1 (March 1974): 26-59.

Oberschall, Anthony. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1973.

O’Boyle, Lenore. “The Middle Class in Western Europe, 1815-1848.” American Historical Review 71, no. 3 (April 1966): 826-45. ------ . “The Problem of an Excess of Educated Men in Western Europe, 1800-1850.” Journal of Modern History 42, no. 4 (December 1970): 471-95. O’Connor, James. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martins Press, 1973. Palmade, Guy. French Capitalism in the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Graeme Holmes. Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1972. Paya, J. B. L’Election. Toulouse, 1848. Payne, Howard. The Police State of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815-1860. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966.

Perdiguier, Agricol. Le Livre du compagnonnage. Paris: Pagnerre, 1841.

------ . Memoires d’un compagnon. Paris: Librarie du Compagnonnage, 1964.

Perkins, Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969. Perreux, Gabriel. Aux temps des societes secretes. Paris: Hachette, 1931. Perrin-Paviot. Un episode de I’histoire de la ville de Toulouse, troubles de juillet 1841. Toulouse: Charpentier, Lebon, Delboy, 1841.

Pinkney, David. Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

------ . “The Crowd in the French Revolution of 1830.” American Historical Review 70, no. 1 (October 1964): 1-17. ------ . The French Revolution of 1830. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Bibliography

323

PUgat, Th. “L’Evolution demographique d’une ville franchise au XIX' siecle, 1’exemple de Toulouse.” Memore de maltrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1952. ----- . “L’fivolution demographique de Toulouse au XIX' sifccle.” Annales du Midi 19 (1952): 227-48. Plessis, Alain. De la fete imperiale au mur des fideres, 1852-1871. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973.

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957. Pouthas, Charles. La Population franqaise pendant la premiere moitie du XIX' siecle. Paris: Presses universitaries de France, 1956.

Price, Roger. The French Second Republic: A Social History. London: Batsford, 1972. ----- . The Economic Modernization of France. New York: Wiley, 1975.

F

----- , ed. Revolution and Reaction. New York: Barnes and Nobles, 1975. ----- , ed. 1848 in France. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. De la capacite politique des classes ouvrieres. Paris: Librairie des sciences politiques et sociales, 1924. Przeworski, Adam. “Material Bases of Consent: Economics and Politics in a Hegemonic System.” In Political Power and Social Theory, edited by Maurice Zeitlin, pp. 21-66. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980.

Puget, Henri. “L’Aftaire Cecile Combettes.” A uta (1957), pp. 114-51. Rigaut, Justin. Confidences d’un ouvrier. Toulouse: Bonnal et Gibrac, 1869.

Robischon, M.; Levine, B.; and Glaberman, M., eds. Work and Society. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1977. Rougerie, Jacques. “1871.” Le Mouvement Social T) (avril-juin 1972): 3-77. Rouja, Nicole. “L’Opinion toulousaine en face de la premiere intemationale.” Thise pour le dipldme d’Studes superieures. University de Toulouse. Rudd, George. The Crowd in History. New York: Wiley, 1964.

------. Revolutionary Europe. London: Collins, 1964.

Rule, James, and Tilly, Charles. “1830 and the Un-Natural History of Revo­ lution.” Journal of Social Issues 28 (1972): 58-74. Sapene, Joel. “L’Emancipation.” Memoire de maitrise, University de Toulouse. 1974. Scott, James, and Kerkvliet, Benedict. “How Traditional Rural Patrons Loose Legitimacy: A Theory with Special Reference to Southeast Asia." Cultures et Development 5, no. 3 (Summer 1973): 501-40. Scott, Joan W. The Glassworkers of Carmaux. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­ versity Press, 1974.

1 i

324

Bibliography

Sewell, William H., Jr. “The Structure of the Working Class of Marseille in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1971. ------ . “Social Change and the Rise of Working-Class Politics in Nineteenth Century Marseille.” Past and Present 65 (1974): 75-109. ------ . “Corporations Republicaines: The Revolutionary Idiom of Parisian Workers in 1848.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 21, no. 2 (April 1979): 195-203. Sharpies, John, and Shortridge, Ray. “Methodological Implications of Enumer­ ation Bias in Census Manuscripts.” Journal of Urban History 1 (1974-75): 11-14.

Sherman, Howard, “Dialectics As a Method.” The Insurgent Sociologist 6, no. 4 (Summer 1976): 57-64. Shorter, Edward, ed. Work and Community in the West. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973. Shorter, Edward, and Tilly, Charles. Strikes in France, 1830-1968. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Skocpol, Theda. States and Social Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Snyder, David, “Theoretical and Methodological Problems in the Analysis of Governmental Coercion and Collective Violence.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 4 (Fall 1976): 277-93. Soboul, Albert. “Tradition et creation dans le mouvement revolutionnaire au XIX' sifecle.” Le Mouvement Social (avril-juin, 1972): 15-31.

------ . The French Revolution 1787-1799. Translated by A. Forest and C. Jones. New York: Random House, 1975.

Steams, Peter. “Patterns of Industrial Strike Activity in France during the July Monarchy.” American Historical Review 70, no. 2 (January 1965): 371-94. Steams, Peter, and Walkowitz, Daniels, eds. Workers in the Industrial Revolution. New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Books, 1974.

St. Leon, E. Le Compagnonnage. Paris: A. Colin, 1901. Sweezy, Paul. The Theory of Capitalist Development. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1956. ------ . Modem Capitalism and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972. Taxy, Pierrette. “La Population toulousaine d’apres le recensement de 1872.” Memoire de maftrise, Universite de Toulouse, 1971. Tchemoff, J. Le Parti republicain and coup d'etat et sous le second empire. Paris: A. Pedone, 1906.

------ . Le Parti republican sous la monarchic de juillet. Paris: A. Pedone, 1901.

I

i Bibliography

325

j

Temple, Jean Pierre. “Deux plebiscites Bonapartistes 4 Toulouse (1851-1870).” Memoire de mailrise, University de Toulouse, 1971.

»

Tenot, Eugene. La Province en decembre, 1851: etude historique sur le coup d'etat. Paris: A. LeChevalier, 1868.

i

Therbom, Goran. Science, Class, and Society. London: New Left Books, 1976.

------ . What Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules? London: New Left Books, 1978.

i

Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967.

t

------ . “Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” Past and Present 38 (1967): 56-97.

F

------ . “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century.” Past and Present 50 (1971): 76-136.

!

------. “Patrician Society, Plebian Culture.” Journal of Social History 7, no. 4 (Summer 1974): 382-405.

Tilly, Charles. “Reflections on the Revolutions of Paris.” Social Problems 12 (Summer 1964): 99-121. ------ . The Vendee. New York: Wiley, 1967. ------ . “Clio and Minerva.” In Theoretical Sociology, edited by J. McKinney and E. Tiryakian, pp. 433-66. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. ------. “Quantification in History As Seen from France.” In The Dimensions of the Past, edited by V. Lorwin and J. Price, pp. 93-126. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

i

I

------ . “Do Communities Act?” Soliological Inquiry 43 (1974): 209-40. ------. An Urban World. Boston: Little Brown, 1974. ------ . The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.

I

------. “Revolutions and Collective Violence.” In Handbook of Political Science, edited by Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, pp. 483-555. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

i

------. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

I'

------. “Getting It Together in Burgundy.” Working Paper for the Center for Research on Social Organization of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1978. Tilly, Charles, and Lees, Lynn. “Le Peuple de juin 1848.” A nnales, E. S. C. 29, no. 5 (septembre-octobre 1974): 1061-91. Tilly, Charles; Tilly, Louise; and Tilly, Richard. The Rebellious Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.

i

I I

326

Bibliography

Tilly, Louise. “The Food Riot As a Form of Political Conflict in France.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2, no. 1 (Summer 1971): 23-58. Tilly, Louise, and Scott, Joan W. Women, Work, and Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1978.

Tudesq. Andr6-Jean. Les Grands Notables en France, 1840-1849. 2 vols. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964. Vigier, Philippe. La Seconde Republique dans la region Alpine. 2 vols. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1963. Villerme M. Des associations ouvrieres. Paris: Pagnerre, 1849.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press, 1974.

Weber, Eugene. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914. Stanford. Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1976.

Weill, Georges. Histoire du parti republicain en France de 1814 a 1870. Paris: F. Alcan, 1900. Weingrod, Alex. “Patrons, Patronage, and Political Parties.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 10, no. 4 (July 1968): 377-400. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. ------ . The Long Revolution. London: Penguin Books, 1965. ------ . “Base and Superstructure in the Marxist Theory of Culture.” New Left Review 82 (November-December 1973): 3-16. Wolff, Philippe, ed. Histoire de Toulouse. Toulouse: Privat, 1974. Wright, Erik Olin. Class, Crisis, and the State. London: New Left Books, 1978.

York, Onslow. The Secret History of the International. London: Strahan & Co., 1872.

Young, Nigel. “Prometheans or Troglodytes? The English Working Class and the Dialectics of Incorporation.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology 12 (Summer 1967): 1-43. Zeldin, Theodore. The Political System of Napoleon III. London: Macmillan, 1958.

------ , ed. Conflicts in French Society. London: Allen & Unwin, 1970. ------ . France, 1848-1945: Ambition, Love, and Politics. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. ------ . France, 1848-1945: Intellect, Taste, and Anxiety. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

r

/ Bibliography

327

Principal Archival Sources

National Archives (A.N.), Paris 1206, 1208, 1214, 1215, 1217, 1230, 1260, 1319, 1338, 1354”, 1360, 1386, 1388, 1395, 1395C, 1398, 1409, 1412, 1440, 1443, 1445, 1449, 1453, 1470, 1531, 1543, 1678, 1697, 1693, 1699, 1766, 1769, 1795, 1760, 1793. BB24 715. BB30 167, 327, 365, 388, 389, 390, 395, 415, 416, 418, 432, 447. C 931,953,2884. FMII 4,7,9,14,19. F12 4503, 4476A, 4831. F” 3160.

BB1’

Archives of the Ministry of War, Vincennes E5

§

150.

Departmental Archives (A.D.), Toulouse

!•

M 196, 647. 4M 47-53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62-67, 69-74, 76, 77, 8Ibis, 82-90, 94. 10M 21, 23. 12M 32,34. 13M 47, 91. 212U 70. 223U 9-15,17-22,24-27. wU 72, 1663, 3797. 54Y 22,42. Municipal Archives (A.M.), Toulouse II 19,59,60,61,63,64,71. IK 21. 1' Division 496, 395. 2D 15. 2F 4,5. 2Q 6,7. 21 1, 59, 63, 64. 3D 4. 13M 91. epi 43. Actes de manages Deliberations du conseil municipale Proces verbaux-police municipale Recensements Registre de controle. Garde Nationale Sidentaire Secretariat General

I

!

1830, 1872. 1847, 1848, 1870, 1871. 1865-1871. 1830, 1872.

1870. 126, 137, 3D137, 6D383, 7D483.

!

!

328

Bibliography

Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Toulouse, Toulouse Seance du 19 fevrier 1866.

Newspapers Association Republicaine Civilisation Emancipation Gazette de Languedoc Journal de Toulouse La Voix du Peuple

1870, 1871. 1849. 1848-1851, 1868-1872. 1848-1851, 1870. 1848, 1870. 1847.

■

■

Index

f

!

Affiliation Catholique, 49-50, 54-55, 66, 68. See also legitimism; Legitimist party apprenticeship, 4. See also artisans Althusser, Louis, 281 anti-clericalism, 43-44, 56, 93-94, 143, 241-42. See also clergy; church aristocracy: class consciousness of, 277; economic position of, 18-20, 50, 60-64, 115; legitimism of, 50-52; opposition to Second Empire, 200 artisans, 1-15, 34-41; culture of, 78, 82-95; impact of industrial capitalism upon, 1-14, 34-41, 74-75, 271, 280-281; political role of, xii, 1-2, 59, 92, 95, 137-40, 177, 181-82, 212-13, 231,266,280; popular royalism of, 51-52, 54, 62; poverty of, 40-41, 54; strikes of, 77-84; work organization of, 3-4, 14, 81. See also working class Association des Travailleurs, 132, 184 Association Republicaine, 218, 253-55, 263 Astima, Jean-Baptiste, 165, 174, 186-87. See also Astima, affair of 1848 Astima, Affair of 1848, 164-67 Bank of France, 150-53, 158, 172, 191 banks, 8,43, 151-52 bankruptcy: economic crises and, 37-38, 141-42, 158: law on overdue bills and, 246; of master artisans, 11, 14, 37-38; revision of laws on, 7 banquets: of July Monarchy, 114, 117, 134, 145-49; of Second Republic, 87-88, 93, 169, 172, 174; of Second Empire, 208

Batiste, Charles, 35, 230,257 Bendix, Reinhart, 131 Bismark Otto von, 222,227, 240,247. See also Franco-Prussian war Blanc, Louis, xi, 90, 97, 106, 131, 133, 141, 147, 150, 154, 161, 188, 266. See also droit au travail; socialism Blanqui, Auguste, 188, 224-26,236, 246 Bleton, Pierre, 25 Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon: capture of, 223-24,227; conservative republic of, 170-74; coup d’6tat of, xi, 183, 188-91, 193-96, 282; election of, 170; liberal reforms of, 200-202, 219,221,224; police state of, 193-98; political propaganda of, 216. See also Second Empire Bourbon dynasty, 47-48, 53, 99-101, 170, 247 bourgeoisie, France, 25, 103, 151, 269-78, 286-89 bourgeoisie, Toulouse: anti-clericalism of, 63; cohesiveness of, 277-78; composition of, 25-28, 277; culture of, 85; patronage and, 63; politics of, 101-2,136-37, 177-81, 185-86; wealth of, 18-20. See also capitalists Buchez, Pierre, 90 business confidence, 8, 103, 151-53, 159, 172, 183, 191,247-48. See also crises, economic Cabet, Etienne, 59, 84,90-93,121, 125,132, 145, 188. See also Icarian communism

329

I i

I

330

cafes, 82-85, 87-89,98, 137,173,175, 190, 194, 196, 207. See also working class, culture capitalism: contradictions of, 281-82; defining feature of, 2,291 n.l; development during mid-nineteenth century, 6-11; French revolution and expansion of, 6; handicraft production and development of, 5-14, 281; hegemony and development of, 270-72; obstacles to development of, 2,9; uneven development of, 15; surplus labor extraction and, 271-72; world system of, 104,221-22. See also capitalism, industrial; capitalists capitalism, industrial: aristocratic opposition to, 20, 59; decline of compagnonnage and, 74-75; decline of popular royalism and, 56,61-62; development in France, xvii, 1-14; development in Toulouse, 30-34,36-39, 80-81; early socialist ideology and, 91, 121, 123; effect on artisans, xii, xv, 1-15, 34-41; effect on merchant capitalists, 41-45; government promotion of, 7-9; wealth redistribution and, 61-62; working-class culture and 69-95. See also capitalism; capitalists; putting-out industry capitalists: finance, 151, 191,246-48,287; industrial, 10, 20,286-88; merchant, 2, 5, 7,9,18-20,26,41-45, 112-13, 159,203-5. See also bourgeoisie, France; bourgeoisie, Toulouse; capitalism; capitalism, industrial Carol commission, investigation of revolutionary commune, 210, 228-30, 234, 241,256-60. See also communes, revolutionary Castelbou, L6on, 217, 250-51,256 Cavaignac, Godefroy, 102, 170 Cazalas, Paul, xi-xii, 133-34, 156, 177 census riots of 1841. See riots, census Cercle de I’Union Democratique de la rue du Mai, 177, 184-85, 187 Chamber of Commerce, Toulouse, 33, 43-44, 61-62, 112-13, 205,229, 241 Changamier, 188 charity, 50, 53-54, 64, 142, 159,215 Charles X (king of France). See Bourbon dynasty church, Catholic, 50, 52-54, 63, 93-94, 200. See also anti-clericalism; clergy Civilisation (newspaper), 172, 185-86, 190, 196

Index class alliances: Republican party and, xiii, 99, 110, 135-40, 177-83,203-6,284, 286-89; worker and peasant, 174, 182, 279 class antagonisms: club debates and, 230; conscription riots and, 212; cooptation of, 270; republicanism and, xiii, 132, 160, 184-88, 276; socialist ideology and, 93, 121, 132; strikes and, 77; war defeats and, 223 class formation: class capacities and, xi-xv, 1-2, 150,279-80; political ideology and, 90-94; political parties and, 275; proletarianization and, 270-72; strikes and, 81-82. See also aristocracy; bourgeoisie; petty bourgeoisie; working class class structure: of Toulouse, 20-31; occupations and, 21, 24, 294-94 n.13, 294-95 n.28; politics and, 112-14, 177-83, 135-40 clergy, 22, 53,56, 63, 94, 100, 143, 200, 241-42, 277, 287. See also anti-clericalism; church. Catholic clubs: of 1848, 157, 159, 161, 166-68, 172-73, 190; of 1870-1871,225, 229-30, 232,239-43,248-49, 263, 266 Club de la rue Lapeyrouse, 87, 169, 177, 184 colonialism, 221-22, 283, 287-88 Combettes, Cecile, 143-44 commercial capitalists. See capitalists, merchant Committee of Public Safety, 233-35, 238, 264, 266. See also communes, revolutionary; League of the Southwest Commune, La (newspaper), 186 communes, revolutionary, 221-67, 283-84; defeat of, 257-62, 280, 284; efforts to win over army, 258-59; Lyon, 258, 260; Marseille, 258, 260; municipal liberties and, 265; Paris, 241, 247-48, 260-62, 265; socialism of, 265-66; Toulouse, 248-59, 264-66. See also Carol commission; League of the Southwest; Rdsseguier commission compagnonnages, 70-72, 74-76, 90, 126, 128. See also guilds confraternities, 53-54, 73 Constituent Democratique, Le (newspaper), 168, 173, 184, 186 cooperatives, 90, 150, 201, 266 corporations. See guilds coup d’6tat. See Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon Cousin, Gustave, 234-35, 238, 250

r

L Index

crises, economic: of July Monarchy, 8,40, 43, 57, 113, 140-45, 147, 282; of Second Republic, 150-53, 158-59; of Second Empire, 8, 44, 57, 64, 78; of Third Republic, 228-29. See also business confidence; unemployment i

mm

d’Astros (archbishop), 53 decentralization. See municipal liberties deKeratry, comte de, 251, 254-55 demonstrations: of July Monarchy, 48-49, 100-1, 104-6, 123-24, 133; of Second Republic, 156-57, 161, 163-64, 171; of Second Empire, 55, 190, 211, 222-24; of Third Republic, 227, 239,242-43, 255-56. See also riots de Planet, Edmond, 32-34 d’Hurbal, Courtois, 237-38 division of labor, 3-4, 10, 14 domestic servants, 30-31, 52, 57-58 droit au travail, le, 131, 160-61, 182, 184. See also Blanc, Louis Ducasse, Pierre, 209,242,250,256 Duportal, Armand, 169, 174, 184, 186,214, 216-18, 227-29, 232-33,235, 237-39, 242-43, 245-46, 249-53, 256, 264 Echo de Province, /’(newspaper), 233 Edwards, Stewart, 264 elections: of July Monarchy, 105, 109, 110-11, 120, 133-34, 145; of Second Republic, 86, 153-54, 167, 169-70, 172, 174-75, 184-85; of Second Empire, 86, 190-91, 199-200, 202-3, 207-8, 213-14, 216-21,223; of Third Republic, 245-46, 261 electoral committees of 1848, 158, 161, 169, 219 Elwitt, Sanford, 287 Emancipation, /’(newspaper): July Monarchy, 114-15, 118-20, 124, 129; Second Republic, 169, 183-85; Second Empire, 84, 190, 196, 206, 209-10,217-18; Third Republic, 232-33, 237, 239, 245, 250, 252-53, 259-60, 264, 266-67 enquetes of industry and commerce, 31-39, 103

factories. See capitalism, industrial Favre, Jules, 224,227, 232, 244,247 federalism, 264. See also communes, revolutionary; municipal liberties First Republic. See Revolution, French Franco-Prussian war, xvii, 220-27, 232, 235-36, 240, 243-46

331

Gambetta, Leon, 224-25,227,231,235,240, 245,289 Gasc, Jean, 101, 109-10, 117-20,129,136, 218 Gatien-Amoult, 136, 156,160,208,218 Gazette du Languedoc, La (newspaper), 20, 51 Gouhenant, Adolphe, 123-25 Government of National Defense. See Third Republic grain trade, 16, 18,41-42, 60-61, 110 Gramsci, Antonio, 282,311-12 n.2. Guesde, Jules, 240,289 guilds, 2,3,6, 9,’13, 70, 81,277. See also compagnonnages; Le Chapelier law Hanagan, Michael, 4, 11 handicraft production. See artisans Hay, Douglas, 58 hegemony, 94-95, 269-78, 286-89 Higgs, David, 66

( r

Icarian communism: artisans and, 59, 92, 126; conspiracy trial of 1843, 124-26; decline of, 144-46; development at Toulouse, 121-30; occupational backgrounds of militants, 121-22; proposed alliance with legitimists, 59; republican politics and, 120-21, 126-30, 132; training of socialist leaders and, 132, 301 n.73. International, First, 234,257, 266-67, 308 n.53. Janot, Isadore, 174, 185 Johnson, Christopher, 12, 92,126 Joly, Jacques, 110, 133,135, 143-45, 148, 156, 162, 164-68, 183, 186 July Monarchy, 7, 97-148 July Revolution, See Revolution of 1830

Kemp, Tom, 191 labor arbitration boards, 150, 194-95,209 Laclau, Emesto, 276 Lafayette, 100, 103 Landes, David, 10 Reforme, La (newspaper), 132 Laujoulet, Eugene, 35-36, 88-89, 159-60 League of the Southwest, 234, 240-41,264, 266. See also Committee of Public Safety; communes, revolutionary Le Chapelier law (1791), 6,72. See also guilds Ledru-Rollin, 156, 169, 171,174

■

332

Lefebvre, Georges, 262 legitimism: associations of, 49,54-55; decline of, 47-68; economic underpinnings of, 50-52; ideology of, 47, 52. 56, 59-60,277; popular culture of, 48-49; religion and, 53-54. See also legitimist party legitimist party: geographic distribution of militants, 66-68; internal divisions of, 109; leadership of, 50-51,53; opposition to July Monarchy, 58-59; Orleanist party alliance with, 245-46; proposed alliance with Icarian communists, 59; Republican party alliance with, 109-11, 114-15, 120, 124,144-45, 147; response to 1848 crisis, 58-59; social background of militants, 50-52; support for Louis Bonaparte, 170. See also legitimism Le Normand, 116-20 Ldotade, frere, 143-44, 148-49,302 n,90. See also anti-clericalism Populaire, Le (newspaper). See Icarian communism Leroux, Pierre, 84,93,97, 131-32, 135,147, 188 leve en masse, 226-27, 232-33,236-37, 240-41,243 Louis-Philippe (king of France). See July Monarchy; Revolution of 1830 Lucet, Marcel, 168-69, 184, 186 Lukacs, Georg, 53 Lyon (France), 103, 108,222, 236, 241, 264 manufactures. See capitalism, industrial Marseille (France), 222, 232-33,236-37, 241,264 Marx, Karl, 2,90, 131,225, 261, 267, 271, 273 Mernman, John, 189 Michelet, Jules, 14,25 Midi, Canal du, 18, 32,42-43, 113, 205 migrants. 22,31,40,61,66, 68. 83 Mobile Guard, 166, 210, 241,243, 249 moral economy, 2-3,52,59,70, 112-13, 277 Mountain (Montagne'), 169, 171,174-75, 184 Mute, Bernard,63, 101, 111, 124, 127, 136, 156, 183, 186,205,208,217-18,261 municipal liberties, 110,203,206-07, 224, 262-63,265. See also federalism mutual aid societies. See mutual benefit societies mutual benefit societies: class solidarities and, 57; counter-hegemony and, 95;

Index

government efforts to coopt, 195; politicization of, 73-74, 108, 175-76; popular royalist, 53-55, 58; repression of, 172, 196; secularization of, 73

National Guard, France, 100, 102-3, 149-50, 155, 160, 262, 283 National Guard, Paris, 171,224-27, 236, 244, 246-48 National Guard, Toulouse: July Monarchy, 105, 108, 111, 117-19; Second Republic, 160, 163-64, 166-67, 171, 187; Third Republic, 228-31,233-34,236-40, 242-43, 248-57,259-60 National Workshops, 150, 154 octroi. See taxes Orleanist party, 102, 113,207,216-17, 245-46,300 n.4. Orleanist regime. See July Monarchy

Paris (France): July Monarchy, 102-3, 108; Second Republic, 58, 149, 154-55, 168, 171; Third Republic, 225-27, 236,240-41, 243-44, 247-48, 265 Party of Order: attempt to recreate, 219, 220; elections of 1848 and, 58, 169-70; elections of 1849 and, 174-75; elections of 1871 and, 261; response to coup d’etat, 189,200 Patriot de Juillet, Le (newspaper), 104, 107 patron-client relations. See patronage patronage: artisans and, 54; Bonapartiste, 63, 198-200; bourgeoisie and, 63; Catholic church and. 52-54; legitimism and, 50, 54; rote in 1848 elections, 154, 198-200; social control and, 57; urban compared to rural, 53; wealth redistribution and decline of, 61-63 patron saint festivals, 53, 85 Paya, J.B., 114, 124-25, 134, 136 Payne, Howard, 193 peasantry, 14, 52, 153-54, 174-75, 182-83, 279,287 Pegot-Ogier, 101, 111, 124, 136, 156 Perdiguier, Agricol, 71 Perier. Casimir, 103-4 Perpessac, 116, 134, 136 Perpignan, Bertrand, 125-26, 128, 176 petty bourgeoisie, 28, 113-14, 137, 167, 181-82,203, 246, 257 population growth, 18, 22, 64-66 prices: bread, 40,91, 133,205,212; grain, 42,61,159 professionals, 26-27, 50-51, 112

Index proletarianization, 10-14, 34-40; decline of compagnonnage and, 74-75; Icarian communism and. 121, 123; republican political activism and, 140, 181-82; strikes and, 78-79. See also capitalism, industrial propriitaire, 20, 27-28 Proudhon, Joseph, 84, 86, 190, 264, 266-67 public works projects: July Monarchy. 142; Second Republic, 155, 159, 161; Second Empire, 203-4; Third Republic, 287 putting-out industry, 6-7, 9, 12-14,30. 33-34. See also capitalists, merchant railroads. 7,42,61,205, 287 religion. See church. Catholic rentiers, 27-28 repression: consequences of, xv, 181, 183-84, 194, 197-98,217,264,266-67, 279, 282-84; hegemony and. 269, 274, 281,283-84; state capacities for, 281-83; tactics of, 193; timing of, 150; world capitalist system and, 104 republicanism: class divisions within, 132, 160, 184-88, 216, 218, 228; division between socialists and non-socialists within, 144, 146, 148, 168-69, 183-88, 216-20,228,231-35,244-45; Hdbertiste tradition. 262-63; ideology of, 276-78, 286-88; Jacobin tradition, 263-64. See also republican party; socialism Republican party: Icarian communist alliance with, 126-28; internal divisions of. 98-99, 126, 129-30, 134, 144, 184, 216-20,228,231-35; candidate selection processor, 158, 160, 162, 184.215-16; class alliances embodied by, xiii-iv, 135-40, 148, 177-83,203-06,286-88; leadership of, 135-36, 151, 185-86. 189, 197-98, 208-9, 215, 217, 222, 228, 286; Legitimist party alliance with, 109-11, 114-15, 120, 124, 144-45, 147; organization of, 98-99; Orleanist party alliance with, 207,216-17; political strategies of, 98-99, 108-12, 115, 126, 146, 183, 190,214; programs of, 97, 112-14, 130-31, 174-75, 203-7; relationship to working class, 97-98, 104-9, 114-15,120, 128-35, 148, 150, 156-57, 159-64, 184-88, 197-98, 205-6,209-10,214-16.275; repression of, 99, 103, 107-8, 124, 171-72, 185, 193-97; revival during 1860s, 201-16, 218-19; social class backgrounds of militants, 135-40, 177-83,202-3. See also republicanism

333

republican socialism. See socialism Resseguier commission, investigation of Government of National Defense, 228, 230,235,237. See also communes, revolutionary Revolution, French: bourgeois leadership of, 276; capitalist development and, 6; political legacy of, 91,97, 108,222,226, 234,262-64; slogans of, 276-77; supression of guilds and, 6, 70 Revolution of 1830, 99-102, 127 Revolution of 1848, 75, 148-64,273; in France, 150-55; in Toulouse, 156-64; June days, Paris, 58, 149, 154-55, 168 riots: anti-legitimist, 105,242-43; census, 115-20, 123; conscription, 210-12; election, 213-14; food, 142; foreign policy, 133, 144-45; theater, 55,86. See also demonstrations RiviJre, Joseph, 126, 134-35, 176,203 Rolland, Etienne, 123, 125-28,203 royalism, popular. See legitimism Royannez, 217-18,240

■

Sagansan, 123, 125-26, 128, 135, 156 Saint-Cyprien, faubourg, 95,116, 211,258 St. Gresse, Charles, 135,208-9,227 sans-cuiottes, 91,263-64. See also republicanism, Hebertiste tradition Sarrans, Jules. 234, 256-57 Second Empire, 7-8, 193-224. See also Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon Second Republic, 149-91 secret societies, 172-73, 175, 177 shopkeepers. See petty bourgeoisie Soboul, Albert. 6,9 socialism, 90-95, 130-44, 174-83; character of early, 130, 265-67; consequences of development of, 144-46; Icarian communism and, 130, 132; ideology of, 56, 90-95, 131, 177, 266-67, 278-79, 283; relationship of movement to Republican party, 132-34, 146-48, 168. See also republicanism Societe des Travailleurs,15-lf>, 158, 161-63, 185, 187 Society of the Rights of Man, 106-8 stock exchange, 41,43-45 strikes, 64,74,77-82, 86, 103, 163-64, 166, 196-97,201-2,209-10, 214, 274,298 n.17. students, 27, 51, 136-37 suffrage: consequences of extension of, 154, 158,207,274-76,280,282; measures limiting impact of, 198-99; restrictions of, 113-14, 172; struggle for extension of.

e

i I

g ■

I

IE I

i

334

113-15,120, 131, 134, 146-48 sweated production. See putting-out industry tariff policies, xvii, 7,42,60-61, 110,200 taxes: as an issue in elections, 153-54, 175, 184,203-5; proposals for reform of, 36, 150-51, 154, 241,289; reform of 1844, 129-30; regressive character of, 93, 142-43 Thiers, Adolphe, 236,240,246-48, 260-62 Third Republic, 221-67,284,286-89 Tilly, Charles, 150 Tour de France, 70-71,74-75. See also compagnonnages Travailleur, Le (newspaper), 182-83 Trochu, 224-27,232,236

unemployment, 35-36,40-41, 93, 140, 142, 154,229. See also droit au travail', crises, economic; National Workshops Valette. Edmond, 208,234,252,254-55, 259-60

Index

Vincent, Francois, 134, 156, 158, 187 Vivent, Jean Francois, 101, 136, 156, 186 Voix du Peuple, La (newspaper), xi, 75, 93, 135 ' Voix du Peuple, La (club). See Astima affair

White Terror of 1815,48 working class, 29-31,69-95; associations, 70-74; composition of, 29-31; counter-hegemony of, 69-70, 94-95, 278-79; culture, 69-70, 82-89, 91, 94-95; political autonomy of, 132, 161-63, 184, 197-98, 215-16, 266, 275; political mobilization of, 58, 157-64, 209-16, 228-31; popular royalism of, 47-56; role in republican politics, 137-40, 176-77, 182-83,203,209-10. See also artisans; class formation; Republican party; socialism Zeldin, Theodore, 20, 57, 94

I

! -