Hubbry Logo
Canut revoltsCanut revoltsMain
Open search
Canut revolts
Community hub
Canut revolts
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Canut revolts
Canut revolts
Canut revolts
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Suppression of the Second Canut revolt in April 1834

The Canut revolts (French: Révolte des canuts) is the collective name for the major revolts by Lyonnais silk workers (French: canuts) which occurred in 1831, 1834 and 1848. They were among the first well-defined worker uprisings of the period known as the Industrial Revolution.

The First Canut revolt in 1831 was provoked by a bad economy and a resultant drop in silk prices, which caused a drop in workers' wages. In an effort to maintain their standard of living, the workers tried to see a minimum price imposed on silk. The refusal of the manufacturers to pay this price infuriated the workers, who went into open revolt. They seized the arsenal and repulsed the local national guard and military in a bloody battle, which left the insurgents in control of the town. The government sent Marshal Jean-de-Dieu Soult, a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars, at the head of an army of 20,000 to restore order. Soult was able to retake the town without any bloodshed, and without making any compromises with the workers. Though some workers were arrested, all were eventually acquitted. The revolt ended with the minimum price abolished and with the workers no better off.

The Second Canut revolt in 1834 occurred in a prosperous economy that had caused a surge in workers' wages. Owners saw these wages as too high, so they attempted to impose a wage decrease. This combined with laws that oppressed Republican groups caused the workers to rebel. The government crushed the rebellion in a bloody battle and deported or imprisoned 10,000 insurgents.

A third insurrection occurred in 1848. Although it was as violent and was motivated by almost identical worker exploitation, 1848 was a year of revolution all over Europe and it did not acquire the same renown as that of 1831. Indeed, the revolt of 1831 encouraged many other worker revolts of the 19th century.

Silk industry in Lyon at the beginning of the 19th century

[edit]
A Jacquard loom.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the textile industry was the main industrial activity of Lyon and the surrounding region. The livelihood of half of the population of Lyon was dependent on the silk weaving industry.

In 1831, the production of silk goods in Lyon was still organised in a manner similar to that of the pre-industrial era:

  • At the top of the socio-economic pyramid was the grande fabrique (literally great manufacture), a group of about 1,400 bankers and traders named fabricants (manufacturers) or soyeux (silk workers), who controlled and financed the manufacture and commercialisation of the goods.[1]
  • The manufacturers contracted about 8,000 chief weaving craftsmen, the canuts, who were paid either for a specific order or per piece. The Canuts owned their own looms, generally between 2 and 6, depending on the size of the workshop.[1]
  • The Canuts employed about 30,000 apprentices, who were paid by the day, but generally lived with the canut, who lodged and fed them, and with whom they shared a similar standard of living.[1]
  • Women were also employed at a lesser salary, as were apprentices and errand boys. These workers filled a wide variety of professions: gareurs (mechanics who repair and adjust the looms), satinaires (women who prepare the satin), battandiers (who make the tools necessary for the weaving), metteurs en carte (who make the coded tables indicating the colour and characteristics of the silk to be used, according to the drawing provided by the customer), liseurs (who create the perforated cards for the Jacquard loom), magnanerelles (women working in the magnaneries—silk-raising farms), warpers are the "ourdisseuses", embroiderers, silk folders, spinners, ourdisseuses (women who prepare the warp of the piece to be woven prior to it being placed on the loom), dyers, etc.

While most of the workshops were situated in houses in the arrondissement of Pentes de la Croix-Rousse, some were also located in Saint-Georges, in Vieux Lyon, Bourgneuf, La Guillotière and Vaise. There was only one industrial grade factory, the silk factory of la Sauvagère, employing 600 workers, in Saint-Rambert-l'Île-Barbe.

The value of silk, as with any luxury product, depended on the economy. A large portion of the demand was from North America, and was very susceptible to competition and change. During the First French Empire, the government accepted, or at least tolerated, the price fixing done in Lyon. The increased revenue from price fixing allowed greater salaries throughout the system. After the economic crisis of 1825, with the support of Catholic royalists, the canuts and their companions had created mutual assistance societies.

First revolt

[edit]

The grim condition of the economy in 1831 drastically reduced the demand for silk goods. Salaries were continually being reduced, much less than their maximum during the economically prosperous years of the First French Empire.

On 18 October 1831, the canuts asked the prefect of the department of the Rhône, Louis Bouvier-Dumolart, to help them negotiate with the manufacturers. The canuts wanted a fixed price to be established, which would stop the further decrease of the price of silk goods. The prefect organised a group of owners and workers, which was able to establish a fixed rate on 26 October. A labour court, the Conseil de prud'hommes, was given the role of ensuring the rate was applied.

The intervention of the prefect was, however, poorly received by some manufacturers who considered his actions to be demagogic, and the concessions afforded by their representatives to be a sign of weakness. 104 of them refused to apply the rate, claiming it was against the principles of the French Revolution. Laws such as the Le Chapelier Law and the Allarde decree of 1791 established the principle of economic non-intervention by the state, in addition to explicitly banning guilds (a predecessor to trade unions), and denying the right to strike. The manufacturers claimed the fixed rate was contrary to freedom of enterprise. On 10 November, they rejected the salary claims of the canuts, which they considered to be exorbitant. This attitude infuriated much of the working class.

Insurrection

[edit]

On 21 November 1831 several hundred weavers toured the then independent commune of Croix-Rousse. They forced the few weavers still at work to close their workshops, harassing the National Guard. Soon after they erected barricades and marched to Lyon with the black flag, which would later go on to become a symbol of Anarchism[citation needed].

On 22 November in Lyon, the workers captured the fortified police barracks at Bon-Pasteur, pillaging the arsenal and stealing weapons in the process. Several units of the military guard and the national guard were attacked. The infantry attempted to stop them, but was forced to retreat under a hail of tiles and bullets. The national guard, most of which was recruited from amongst the canuts, changed sides, joining the insurgents.

After a bloody battle which caused about 600 casualties (100 dead, 263 injured on the military side, 69 dead, 140 injured on the civilian side), the insurgents captured the town.[2] During the night of 22–23 November, General Roguet, commander of the 7th division and mayor Victor Prunelle fled the town.

The insurgents occupied the town hall. At this point, the leaders of the workers were unsure as to the further course of action, having started the strike with the sole intention of making sure the fixed rate on silken goods was being applied correctly. A few republicans in the group insisted on using the momentum to form a governmental committee. The committee did not make any definite decisions, due to a lack of agenda. Not helping the committee's effectiveness was the canuts' refusal to have their insurrection used for political purposes.

Return of order

[edit]
Portrait of Louis Philippe I by Franz Xaver Winterhalter, 1841

In Paris, the news of the riot and the occupation of France's second largest city caused astonishment and consternation. Debate raged in the Chamber of deputies and the opposition, led by François Mauguin, seized the opportunity to decry the incompetence of the ministers. The President of the Council of Ministers, Casimir Perier, whose government's first goal was to re-establish order after the July Revolution, thought otherwise. He blamed the troubles in Lyon on Saint-Simonianist propaganda and political manoeuvres by supporters of Charles X. King Louis-Philippe himself was quite sure that the problems were caused by republican actions. General Baudrand, aide de camp of Crown Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans, wrote: "Poverty... [...] there are many exaggerations in what is said about it. It has been worse in other times and did not produce such results," which probably represented opinion in the Tuileries Palace.[3]

On 25 November, Perier announced that Crown Prince Ferdinand Philippe, and Marshal Nicholas Soult, Minister of War and formerly one of Napoleon's most renowned marshals, would command an army of 20,000 soldiers to retake Lyon. King Louis-Philippe asked them to be strict, but to avoid the use of capital punishment. On 29 November 1831, he wrote to Soult: "The important point [...] is to enter Lyon without suffering any [major] blows and without agreeing to any conditions. [...] You will need to be strict. [...] [Y]et you know that when I say strict, I do not refer to execution, and it is not to you that I need say this."[4] Louis-Philippe was very critical of the prefect, writing: "It is very clear, in my opinion, that he had a previously formed agreement with the leaders, and that he was not acting loyally to his government before the events."[4] He nonetheless was cautious on the topic of the fixed rate, writing to his son: "The fixed rate is a delicate point on which I believe we must tread lightly and carefully weigh what we do. I can not give further advice because I lack sufficient information. You must say as little on the subject as possible."[4]

Portrait of Marshal Soult by George Peter Alexander Healy, 1840

On 28 November, the Duke of Orléans and Marshal Soult stopped at Trévoux, where they waited for order to return in Lyon. They entered the city on 3 December without any blood being shed and with no negotiation or agreements being made. The fixed rate was abolished, the prefect dismissed, the national guard disbanded, and a large garrison positioned in the town. The government decided to build a fort to separate the commune of Croix-Rousse from the town of Lyon. 90 workers were arrested, 11 of whom were prosecuted and acquitted in June 1832.

Soult informed the king of the success of his mission, attributing all the praise to "recognition of the king and the prince" and, where it was lacking, to an "expression of sadness which was obviously a testimony of repentance." He noted that all the authorities came to "pay homage to His Highness," and that all had prepared very good speeches, with the exception of the archbishop, Jean Paul Gaston de Pins,[5] who was content saying he had "nothing but prayers to offer."[3]

From 17 to 20 December 1831, the far left opposition parties tried to bring the situation in Lyon back to the forefront in the Chamber of Deputies. Casimir Perier declared that the revolt had wanted to arm itself "against the freedom of commerce and industry," and affirmed on 26 December that "society will not let itself be threatened with impunity". The cabinet's motion was passed quickly by a large majority, continuing to the day's agenda despite the protests and demand for an enquiry by the far left.

Second revolt

[edit]

After the failure of the 1831 revolt, the Parisian republicans sent agents to Lyon. They were able to create a large network of secret societies, often working closely with labour associations for silk craftsmen.

At the end of 1833, good economic prospects and conditions caused a boom in the Lyonnais silk industry. As a result, the government thought the chances of a second revolt extremely unlikely. The Interior Minister, the Count of Argout, wrote to the king on 9 September 1833: "I have just received M. Fulchiron, who comes from Lyon. The manufacture is in a state of simply fabulous prosperity. The orders from America are immense. The workers earn 6 to 7 francs per day. This is too much. They are, however, in a state of tranquillity as one may easily conceive."[6] On 1 February 1834, an attempt by a few hundred Italian, German and Polish revolutionaries from Geneva and Grenoble was made to start a republican coup in Savoy. D'Argout told the king: "They are Savoyards who have recently come to Grenoble, and a few French republicans. M. de Gasparin writes to me that 1,200 inhabitants of Lyon had made plans to support the movement in Savoy should it have succeeded."[6] The republicans intended to create a revolutionary climate, taking advantage of a salary conflict caused by high worker wages.

In February 1834, owners began to agree that workers' salaries had increased too much, and they began an attempt to impose a reduction. The results of this were conflict and strikes, the leaders of which were arrested and tried. Their trial began on 5 April, while the Chamber of Peers were discussing a law which would intensify the repression of republican groups. The Republicans managed to amalgamate several political parties to fall within the scope of this law, as did the mutual workers' associations to which Lyon's canuts belonged. As a result, thousands of craftsmen rebelled on 9 April. The leaders proclaimed daily agendas, which they dated not "9 April 1834," but instead "22 Germinal, year XLII of the Republic," using the French Republican Calendar.

The bombardment of Brunet House in Croix-Rousse. Oil on canvas.

The army occupied the town and bridges. Soon after, gunfire began, with troops firing on an unarmed crowd. Barricades were erected quickly throughout the town to hinder the army's progress. The disorganised workers stormed the Bon-Pasteur barracks, the same as during the first revolt, and again plundered the arsenal. The workers barricaded the different districts of the city, including Croix-Rousse, effectively creating fortified camps. What would be known later as the Sanglante semaine (bloody week) had begun.[2]

Adolphe Thiers, the Interior minister, would use a tactic that he would later reuse in 1871 to defeat the Paris Commune: retreat from the town, abandon it to the insurgents, surround it, then take it back.

On 10 April, more shots were exchanged between the insurgents and the troops. The workers occupied the telegraph office, the Guillotière quarter, and then the nearby city of Villeurbanne where military barracks were captured. Black flags were flown over the arrondissements Fourvière, Saint-Nizier and Antiquaille[citation needed]. Fighting continued on 11 April; Croix Rousse was bombarded by the recently reinforced military, while revolts started in the more distant cities of Saint-Étienne and Vienne.[2] On 12 April, the troops attacked and re-took the Guillotière quarter, after having destroyed numerous houses by artillery. On 14 April, the army reconquered the town piece by piece, attacking Croix-Rousse for the third time.[2]

15 April was the end of the Sanglante semaine in Lyon, the second canut rebellion having been suppressed. Conservative estimates of the number of casualties were between 100 and 200,[7] while more liberal estimates were more than 600.[2] 10,000 captured insurgents were tried in a "gigantic trial" in Paris during April 1835, and were condemned to deportation or strict prison sentences.[2] The July Monarchy suspected the intrigues of other groups, such as legitimists or Bonapartists, at work, which accounted for the harsh repression of the revolt.[8]

Third revolt

[edit]

A third insurrection occurred in 1848. Although it was as violent and was motivated by almost identical worker conditions, 1848 was a year of revolution all over Europe and it did not acquire the same renown as that of 1831. Indeed, the revolt of 1831 encouraged many other worker revolts of the 19th century.

Consequences

[edit]

In 1836 the Rive-de-Gier poet Guillaume Roquille wrote Breyou et so disciplo, an account of the revolt in the Franco-Provençal language. Although it was apparently accurate, he was prosecuted for his publication.[9] The canut revolts caused the emergence of a sense of shared interests in workers' communities. It began an era of social claims, that would be accentuated by the living conditions of the workers during this time of emerging capitalism, as attested by the famous memoirs of doctor Louis René Villermé at the Académie des sciences morales et politiques.

They later influenced the rebellion that resulted in the brief Paris Commune,[10] which in turn influenced much of the socialist, communist and anarchistic philosophies of the present.

In 1834, Franz Liszt wrote the piano piece "Lyon" from his collection Album d'un voyageur (S.156), which contains a motto from that time: "Vivre en travaillant ou mourir en combattant." He dedicated the piece to Lamennais.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Canut revolts

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Canut revolts were a series of worker uprisings in , , led by silk weavers known as canuts primarily in November 1831 and April 1834, driven by demands for minimum wage tariffs amid economic downturns and exploitative pricing by silk merchants. In the dominant in Lyon's industry, over 40,000 canuts—independent artisans dependent on merchants for raw materials and orders—faced wage reductions as silk demand fell due to and market saturation, exacerbating indigence among a comprising roughly half the city's population. The 1831 revolt began on 21 November when canuts opposed a imposed by Bouvier-Dumolart that further depressed earnings, marching on , arming themselves, and briefly controlling the city until suppressed by troops under Soult, resulting in approximately 600 deaths across both sides. Temporary concessions included tariff cancellation and dismissal, but underlying tensions persisted as merchants regained leverage. The 1834 uprising escalated from a general strike of around 60,000 workers against renewed wage cuts—despite an industry boom—intensified by a 9 April prohibiting associations, leading to barricade fighting and seizure of key sites like and the telegraph office. Government forces, directed by , encircled and bombarded rebel strongholds in Croix-Rousse during "Bloody Week" (11-15 April), inflicting over 600 casualties, with at least 200 canuts killed and hundreds arrested or deported. These events underscored early industrial class conflicts under the July Monarchy, with canuts demonstrating organized resistance through strikes and mutual aid, though ultimately repressed without structural reforms, influencing subsequent European labor movements.

Economic and Industrial Background

Structure of the Lyon Silk Industry

The Lyon silk industry in the early operated through a decentralized , where a small number of powerful merchant-manufacturers, known as marchands-fabricants, controlled the procurement of raw , creation of designs, and sale of finished fabrics. These merchants, numbering approximately 308, set prices and terms, supplying materials to independent master weavers while retaining economic dominance. Master weavers, or canuts, estimated at 5,575 (though declining to 3,000–4,000 by due to market pressures), owned their and managed production in home-based workshops, often employing , apprentices, family members, and auxiliary workers such as reelers and dyers. This structure supported 's position as Europe's leading , with over half the city's of around 175,000 engaged in silk-related activities, totaling roughly 30,000–40,000 direct workers. Canuts wove commissioned pieces on specialized looms, including the innovative Jacquard loom invented in 1801, which used punched cards for automated pattern control and was widely adopted in Lyon by the 1820s, enabling complex motifs without multiple drawboys. Payment was piece-rate based, with weavers advancing costs for maintenance and tools, creating financial precariousness as merchants adjusted rates downward during slumps in luxury demand from Paris and export markets. Beneath the 8,000 or so master craftsmen were layers of 30,000 apprentices and low-wage helpers, including women and children performing preparatory tasks like spinning and winding, all without fixed wages or legal protections. This pre-industrial organization, regulated loosely under the Fabrique—a traditional guild-like body of manufacturers—preserved artisan skills but amplified tensions from merchant control and competition. The system's hierarchy extended beyond weaving: 1,400 bankers and traders financed operations, while a shrinking intermediary class of 42 merchant-masters handled subcontracting, underscoring the canuts' dependence on upstream capital for survival. Despite technological advances like the Jacquard mechanism boosting productivity, the lack of centralized factories kept production fragmented across hillside workshops in districts such as , where steep terrain and traboules (covered passageways) facilitated material transport but isolated workers socially. Economic data from the period indicate output peaked in the 1820s, with Lyon exporting high-value velvets and brocades, yet bore the brunt of cycles tied to fashion trends and disruptions.

Market Pressures and Wage Decline

The industry, centered on a where merchants supplied raw materials and dictated piece rates to independent weaver-artisans known as canuts, encountered intensifying market pressures in the late and early due to foreign and fluctuating demand. Cheap English imports surged, rising from 119,570 francs in value between and , destabilizing local prices and contributing to in a saturated market. Broader economic disruptions, including the 1832 in , revolutions in , a U.S. banking crisis, and debates over English tariffs, further eroded export markets, particularly to the , , and , where had exported over 111 million francs worth of goods from to . By 1831, these pressures manifested in a sharp decline in silk orders and widespread business closures, creating a downward spiral in industry activity amid a general economic gloom. Demand for silk goods plummeted, prompting merchants to reduce payment rates per woven piece (tarif), as canuts operated under a system where earnings directly mirrored fluctuating silk values without fixed minima. Efforts to negotiate a minimum tariff failed when 104 manufacturers rejected prefectural mediation on October 18, 1831, exacerbating unemployment and income instability among the roughly 30,000 canuts. Wage declines were acute, with canuts reporting earnings insufficient to cover , harking back to higher Empire-era tariffs they viewed as more equitable. In early , despite a temporary industry boom, merchants imposed further cuts, lowering rates for shawls and peluches from 1 50 centimes to 1 25 centimes per aune, directly fueling renewed tensions. A U.S. in March halved Lyon's exports, amplifying these reductions and pushing piece-rate incomes into poverty levels for skilled dependent on merchant contracts. This combination of external market shocks and internal merchant leverage eroded the canuts' economic viability, transforming artisanal independence into precarious subsistence.

Social Organization of the Canuts

Artisan Status and Mutualist Networks

The canuts, skilled weavers in , maintained a distinct status characterized by operational within small-scale workshops. These ateliers, typically housing two to five looms and operated by a chef d'atelier with family members or hired compagnons, allowed weavers to control their production processes and own their equipment, contrasting with the factory-based wage labor emerging elsewhere in . Under the prevailing fabrique system, merchants supplied raw and designs, but canuts retained discretion over execution, fostering a self-perception as independent producers rather than proletarianized dependents. This artisanal framework persisted into the 1830s despite mechanization pressures from Jacquard looms, with over 14,000 such workshops documented in by 1835, underscoring their decentralized, craft-oriented structure. Complementing this status were mutualist networks that emphasized and collective defense, predating broader socialist ideologies. From the onward, canuts formed sociétés de secours mutuel to provide benefits like sickness pay, funeral aid, and strike support through member contributions, reflecting early working-class amid wage instability. A pivotal emerged in 1827 under canut leader Pierre Charnier: the Société de Surveillance et d'Indication Mutuelle, which monitored merchant reliability, facilitated job referrals among members, and promoted mutual assistance to counterbalance commercial power imbalances. Evolving into the Société d'Indication et d'Assistance Mutuelles (" Mutuel") by 1829, it split amid internal debates but continued advocating for fixed minimum tariffs and workshop protections, influencing petitions against undercutting. These networks extended to innovative mutualist initiatives, such as the canuts' establishment of Lyon's first mutualist in the early , offering low-cost medicines funded by collective dues and bypassing profiteering apothecaries. By enabling information sharing via printed circulars and assemblies, societies like Mutuel coordinated resistance to arbitrary price cuts, as seen in pre-1831 tariff campaigns documented in the canut press L'Écho de la Fabrique. While not overtly political, these structures cultivated a proto-union , with membership often overlapping hierarchies and providing resilience against market downturns that halved earnings in the late 1820s.

Grievances and Pre-Revolt Tensions

The canuts, skilled silk weavers in , faced acute economic distress in the late 1820s and early due to and a saturated market for luxury silk goods, which precipitated a sharp decline in silk prices and, consequently, weavers' piece-rate wages. This crisis intensified following the economic downturn of winter 1830–1831, where demand for silk plummeted amid broader industrial stagnation, forcing many weavers into despite their artisanal expertise and long hours on Jacquard looms. Wages, already eroded by among merchant-fabricants who dictated terms in the decentralized , fell further as fabricants unilaterally reduced payments to maintain profits, exacerbating the gap between rising living costs and earnings insufficient for subsistence. Central to the canuts' grievances was the loss of a minimum —a fixed per piece established under the Napoleonic Empire (1804–1814) but eroded post-Restoration, leaving weavers vulnerable to arbitrary cuts without legal recourse or power. In response, weavers organized through mutualist societies and publications like L'Écho de la fabrique, demanding restoration of this to guarantee a baseline income across fabric types and patterns, viewing it as essential against fabricants' monopolistic control over raw materials, designs, and markets. These demands reflected not mere wage hikes but a structural challenge to the fabrique system's inequities, where independent master-weavers and their journeymen bore production risks while merchants captured value, amid absent social protections like unemployment aid. Pre-revolt tensions escalated after the of 1830, which raised expectations of liberal reforms but delivered little for workers, as the new regime prioritized bourgeois interests and deployed troops to , signaling state alignment with fabricants. By February 1831, thousands of canuts petitioned authorities for intervention, culminating in failed negotiations by October 18, 1831, when the prefect's arbitration was rejected by merchants unwilling to concede the tariff, igniting perceptions of systemic bias and provoking . This standoff, compounded by sporadic strikes and protests, underscored deepening class antagonisms, with weavers' solidarity networks clashing against prefectural mediation that favored industrial stability over labor equity.

The 1831 Revolt

Immediate Triggers and Outbreak

The immediate triggers of the 1831 Canut revolt arose from acute economic distress in Lyon's industry, where falling raw prices and had eroded workers' piecework earnings, prompting demands for enforcement of a fixed minimum . Despite prefectural yielding an agreement on to implement this , merchants largely refused compliance, exacerbating grievances among the independent weaver workshop heads known as canuts. Preceding tensions manifested in October through unauthorized worker assemblies in the Croix-Rousse district, where groups of up to 60 canuts paraded to voice demands, signaling organized unrest without yet erupting into violence. On November 20, 1831, the Mutual Association of Silk Workshop Heads, a key mutualist organization of canut leaders, resolved to launch a aimed at compelling manufacturers to honor the and secure fair pay. This economic action, devoid of explicit political aims, represented a assertion of against merchant intransigence. The revolt's outbreak ignited the next day, November 21, as thousands of striking canuts marched down the slopes of the Croix-Rousse hill toward central , converging on the Place des Terreaux while bearing a black flag emblazoned with the Vivre en travaillant ou mourir en combattant ("Live by working or die fighting"). Initial confrontations erupted when the demonstrators clashed with detachments of the bourgeois and regular army units dispatched to suppress the gathering, transforming the labor protest into armed street fighting. By midday, insurgents had seized key points including the Hôtel de Ville, marking the rapid escalation from strike to urban insurrection.

Escalation to Armed Insurrection

The strikes organized by the canuts' mutual aid societies, demanding enforcement of a minimum tariff agreed upon on October 25, 1831, initially remained non-violent but intensified after manufacturers refused compliance starting November 10. On November 21, approximately 3,000 workers assembled in the Croix-Rousse district and marched toward the prefecture in central Lyon to press their grievances, only to encounter resistance from the National Guard. When protesters threw stones, Guard troops opened fire, killing several canuts and wounding others, prompting the crowd to disperse temporarily before regrouping in larger numbers under a black banner emblazoned with the slogan "Vivre en travaillant ou mourir en combattant" ("Live by working or die by fighting"). This incident marked the rapid shift to armed conflict, as enraged workers armed themselves with improvised weapons, seized firearms from captured guards, and erected across key streets in Croix-Rousse and adjacent areas. By the night of November 21–22, the violence spread to the Guillotière suburb and central , with insurgents overwhelming outnumbered troops and forcing General Roguet's to evacuate the city, leaving it under canut control. Fierce ensued, involving deployed by retreating forces against barricades defended by thousands of determined workers who maintained discipline without widespread looting or attacks on private property. The insurgents established an insurrectional committee by November 24 to organize the provisional administration, effectively holding —a city of 134,000 inhabitants—for several days amid an estimated 100 initial fatalities from the clashes. This escalation demonstrated the canuts' capacity for coordinated resistance, transforming economic grievances into a urban occupation, though it lacked explicit republican or ideological proclamations beyond the labor-focused . Government reinforcements, including 20,000 troops under Marshal Soult, would later reassert control by early December without immediate recapture of the city through force.

Government Repression and Casualties

As the Canut uprising intensified on November 21, 1831, with insurgents seizing the Hôtel de Ville and overwhelming local units, the prefect of the appealed to for reinforcements. Initial government forces, numbering around 1,500, proved insufficient against the estimated 10,000 armed workers, prompting the declaration of a on November 24 by the administration. Marshal Nicolas Soult, appointed commander of the Army of the , mobilized approximately 20,000 troops, including regular infantry, artillery, and , converging on from surrounding garrisons. By late November, these forces initiated a systematic counteroffensive, employing cannon fire to dismantle in the silk-worker strongholds of and La Guillotière. Street-to-street combat ensued, with government troops advancing under cover of and charges, recapturing key positions by December 2. The repression resulted in heavy losses, primarily among the insurgents due to their lack of heavy weaponry and organized command. Contemporary accounts and later historical analyses estimate around 200 deaths and approximately 400 wounded in total, encompassing both civilians and personnel. Other records aggregate nearly 600 dead and injured across the clashes. casualties were lighter, with soldiers benefiting from superior firepower and numbers, though exact breakdowns vary; insurgents suffered disproportionately from the barrages and pursuits into worker districts.

The 1834 Revolt

Failed Negotiations and Spark

In February 1834, silk merchants imposed further cuts to piece rates for certain fabrics, reducing payments from 1 50 centimes to 1 25 centimes per , amid declining orders and market saturation. The canuts' primary mutualist , the Société du Devoir, responded by mobilizing against these unilateral reductions, seeking a binding minimum to stabilize earnings. On February 12, the society held a vote among its members, approving a by a margin of 1,297 to 1,004, set to begin February 14 unless merchants conceded to the tariff demands. Negotiations ensued between worker delegates and merchant representatives, but the employers refused any fixed , citing competitive pressures and , leading to deadlock. The strike commenced on February 14, involving around 60,000 male and female workers and halting loom operations in Croix-Rousse and other hill districts, but it faltered by February 24 due to exhaustion of strike funds, among participants, and merchants' refusal to negotiate further or hire strikebreakers. The strike's collapse prompted authorities to arrest 13 ringleaders on charges of illegal coalition under recent laws prohibiting worker associations, with their trial scheduled for April 5 at the Palais de Justice in Place Saint-Jean. Tensions simmered through early April, fueled by ongoing wage disputes, canceled American contracts exacerbating unemployment, and a large on April 6 attended by up to 10,000 workers demonstrating . On April 8, the Société du Devoir called a renewed coinciding with the trial's continuation, urging preparations. The immediate spark occurred on , when crowds gathered outside the to the proceedings; an incident at the entrance to Rue Saint-Jean—likely involving worker agitation or a confrontation—escalated as soldiers opened fire on demonstrators, killing several, including children, and wounding others. This gunfire "set off the ," transforming protests into widespread barricade-building and armed clashes, as canuts proclaimed "Live working or die fighting" and seized strategic points in .

Seizure of Lyon and Proclaimed Republic

The second Canut revolt erupted on April 9, 1834, in the working-class districts of , particularly Croix-Rousse and La Guillotière, following the passage of a prohibiting coalitions and associations deemed harmful to industry. Disorganized but determined groups of silk and their allies assaulted the fortified Bon-Pasteur barracks, overcoming guards to seize weapons, and subsequently plundered the city arsenal for additional arms and ammunition. This enabled the insurgents to erect extensive blocking access to the hilltop neighborhoods, effectively seizing control of these elevated areas overlooking the city center. Insurgent leaders, influenced by republican ideals, issued daily orders and proclamations dated according to the French Republican Calendar as "22 Germinal, Year XLII of the Republic," explicitly rejecting the July Monarchy and invoking the revolutionary legacy of 1789. These documents, posted notably in Croix-Rousse on April 11, called for resistance in the name of republican principles and mutual aid among workers, framing the uprising as a defense of liberty against exploitation and state repression. While not establishing a formal republican government, this symbolic proclamation galvanized participants and aligned the revolt with broader anti-monarchical sentiments, distinguishing it from purely economic grievances. For several days, the canuts maintained authority in their strongholds, organizing patrols to protect warehouses from looting and distributing foodstuffs to the needy, demonstrating rudimentary amid the chaos. However, government forces retained hold of the bourgeois core and key bridges, limiting the insurgents' grasp to peripheral worker enclaves rather than a complete seizure of . Initial clashes resulted in dozens of casualties on , setting the stage for intensified military intervention.

Military Counteroffensive and Defeat

In response to the canuts' of key areas in on April 9, 1834, the French government under Prime Minister initially allowed the insurgents apparent control while mobilizing reinforcements. Directed by Thiers as Minister of the Interior, the involved feigning abandonment of the city to lure the rebels into overextension before launching a coordinated counteroffensive. Marshal Nicolas Soult, serving as Minister of War, and Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans (eldest son of King Louis-Philippe), led the assault with approximately 10,000 to 26,000 troops supported by artillery. The counteroffensive commenced on April 11 and intensified through April 15, known as the "Bloody Week" (), with systematic attacks on barricades in working-class districts like and La Guillotière. Government forces retook strategic points, including the arsenal and city center, overwhelming the lightly armed canuts who relied on improvised weapons and mutual defense networks. The fighting resulted in heavy casualties, with estimates of over 200 civilian deaths (many non-combatants) and nearly 130 military fatalities, alongside hundreds wounded on both sides. By April 15, the insurgents were defeated, with the army restoring order and the Duke of Orléans entering triumphantly. Over 500 canuts were arrested immediately, paving the way for subsequent trials and deportations, marking the revolt's decisive suppression.

The 1848 Uprising

Revolutionary Context

The of , established after the , increasingly alienated workers and republicans through its conservative policies, including a restrictive limited to about 250,000 wealthy male citizens out of a exceeding 35 million, rampant , and suppression of political banquets advocating expanded voting rights. These grievances intersected with a severe economic downturn beginning in , marked by successive failures, , skyrocketing —wheat doubled in cost—and industrial stagnation that fueled across , particularly in urban centers like and . Banking failures and credit contraction further paralyzed commerce, with over 1,000 enterprises collapsing in alone by late 1847, amplifying class tensions and radicalizing opposition groups ranging from moderate reformers to socialist clubs. In , France's silk capital, these national pressures compounded longstanding structural woes in the fabrique—the decentralized silk-weaving network employing over 30,000 Canuts (master weavers and their families) in the 1830s, a figure that persisted into the amid fluctuating demand. The industry faced chronic merchant dominance over pricing, where négociants (silk traders) imposed piece-rate tariffs insufficient to cover rising living costs, exacerbated by foreign competition from and , adoption of Jacquard looms displacing skilled labor, and periodic gluts from . By 1847–1848, the broader triggered mass layoffs, leaving thousands of Canuts destitute in the densely packed , where workshops doubled as homes and mutualist associations provided scant relief amid food riots and debt. This economic precarity, rooted in the rather than factory labor, bred resentment against the bourgeois elite who profited from exports while workers endured 14-hour days and . Politically, Lyon's Canuts, hardened by the suppressed revolts of and , evolved from economic protesters to bearers of republican and proto-socialist ideals, organizing in secret societies like the Voraces—founded in as an armed cadre of Croix-Rousse meeting in cabarets to plot against the . The Paris uprising of –24, 1848, which toppled Louis Philippe and birthed the Second , ignited local fervor; news of the king's abdication on February 24 prompted immediate mobilization, with Voraces members viewing the as an opening for deeper social reorganization, including worker control over production and even irredentist ambitions toward . This fusion of inherited grievances, acute crisis, and revolutionary contagion positioned Lyon as a hotspot for extending the Paris model beyond liberal reforms toward radical labor demands.

Canut Participation and Outcomes

In the context of the February Revolution that overthrew the July Monarchy and established the Second Republic, Lyon's Canuts actively participated through the Société des Voraces, an armed republican association of silk workers primarily from the Croix-Rousse district. Formed amid the national upheaval, the group—numbering several hundred—ransacked the city hall and targeted weaving factories between February 24 and 29, 1848, seizing workshops viewed as emblems of merchant exploitation and low piece-rate pay. This action reflected persistent grievances over wages eroded by competition and mechanization, rather than purely alignment with Parisian republicanism, as Canut mutual aid societies had long organized against merchant pricing power. Further escalation occurred in early April, when approximately 1,500 Canuts, marching from surrounding areas, entered on April 3 proclaiming a " of Equals" and demanding economic reforms like fixed minimum tariffs for silk weaving. Lacking sufficient arms and supplies after arduous travel, the insurgents erected barricades but faced immediate military opposition from and regular troops. By mid-April, after clashes resulting in dozens of casualties, the uprising fragmented, with many participants dispersing or surrendering. A residual flare-up on May 13 saw Canuts destroy Jacquard looms destined for new factories, underscoring ongoing resistance to technological displacement that reduced bargaining power. The outcomes mirrored prior Canut insurrections: swift repression confined to Croix-Rousse, with the army restoring order by late and arresting over 200 participants, though trials under led to many acquittals due to sympathies. No concessions materialized on core demands for floors or ; the provisional government's focus on national elections and universal male suffrage provided nominal political gains but ignored structural silk industry issues, where merchants retained control over piecework rates. Economically, the disturbances exacerbated Lyon's downturn, with production halts costing an estimated 10-15% of annual output and accelerating closures, leaving thousands of Canuts—up to 30% of the 40,000-strong workforce—unemployed amid the 1848-1850 recession. While briefly amplifying worker visibility in republican discourse, the events yielded no causal shift in , as evidenced by unchanged tariff negotiations post-uprising.

State Responses and Policy Shifts

Martial Law and Trials

Following the military suppression of the April 1834 uprising, which resulted in approximately 170 deaths among the insurgents and over 200 among government forces, Lyon remained under heavy military occupation to restore order and deter renewed resistance. Reinforcements totaling around 20,000 troops were deployed under commanders such as General Pélissier, effectively placing the city under military authority amid widespread arrests exceeding 10,000 individuals in the initial crackdown. The judicial response began with the trial of February strike leaders, convened on April 5, 1834, at Lyon's Palais de Justice under tight military protection; gunfire directed at protesters outside on April 9 ignited the revolt itself. Post-defeat, authorities pursued systematic prosecution, culminating in the "procès monstre" at Paris's starting May 1835, targeting key insurrection organizers like Joseph Bené and others accused of and association under the newly enacted April 10, 1834, anti-association law. Of the defendants, outcomes included 7 deportations to , 43 prison sentences ranging from months to years, 9 acquittals, and one prior to verdict. In the 1848 context, Canut participation in Lyon's revolutionary events aligned with national uprisings, leading to temporary gains like workshop national establishments, but subsequent conservative backlash under the Second Republic involved arrests and trials for participants in June Days-related disturbances, though specific Canut-focused prosecutions were less centralized than in and yielded mixed results amid broader amnesties. Military garrisons enforced order without formal declaration, reflecting the era's pattern of ad hoc repression over codified .

Reforms and Non-Reforms in Labor Regulation

The French government, under Nicolas Soult following the 1834 Canut revolt, prioritized military suppression over legislative concessions to the silk weavers' demands for regulated minimum tariffs on piecework to guarantee subsistence wages. Despite the uprising involving up to 40,000 workers and briefly establishing a in , no national or local ordinances were enacted to fix prices or protect against unilateral wage cuts by merchants and master weavers, preserving the decentralized fabrique system's employer dominance. The Le Chapelier Law of 1791, which criminalized worker associations and strikes as threats to free commerce, remained unaltered and was invoked to justify arrests of canut leaders, with over 500 tried in special courts by late 1834. This non-reform entrenched prohibitions on collective bargaining, forcing weavers to rely on secret mutual aid societies that faced ongoing surveillance and dissolution. Economic pressures from fluctuating silk demand and technological shifts, such as Jacquard looms reducing labor needs, continued unchecked without regulatory intervention. Broader policy reflected principles favoring industrial expansion, with no or hours limitations introduced until the 1841 child labor restrictions, which applied mainly to mechanized industries outside Lyon's artisanal sector and stemmed more from general humanitarian advocacy than direct revolt fallout. The absence of reforms underscored the regime's causal prioritization of bourgeois property rights and order, viewing canut agitation as republican rather than legitimate economic grievance, thereby perpetuating cycles of and unrest into the 1839 uprising.

Long-Term Consequences

Economic Disruptions in

The Canut revolts precipitated acute interruptions in Lyon's production, as strikes and supplanted weaving activities. In 1831, the uprising commencing on November 21 disrupted operations across the Croix-Rousse district, where workers erected and clashed with troops, effectively idling thousands of looms for over a week amid battles that claimed around 600 lives from both sides. The 1834 events amplified this: a involving approximately 6,000 workers in February paralyzed output, evolving into fortified combat during the "glorious days" of February 15–21 and the "bloody week" of April 10–13, when military counteroffensives inflicted over 600 casualties and further suspended industry functions. Plundering of armories and attacks on infrastructure compounded material losses for manufacturers during these periods. Post-revolt repression inflicted enduring workforce depletion, as authorities targeted the sector's core labor pool of over 40,000 , including 8,000 master craftsmen and 30,000 companions. Following the 1834 suppression, around 10,000 captured insurgents faced trials in during April 1835, culminating in widespread condemnations to —often to penal colonies—or extended . This mass removal of skilled artisans engendered acute labor shortages, hindering reconstruction of production capacity and prolonging economic strain in a city where weaving dominated and output. The imbalance—favoring roughly 1,400 dominant merchants against the vast weaver base—exacerbated vulnerabilities, as the exodus of experienced hands impeded efficiency and scalability in the fragmented workshop system.

Influence on French Labor History

The Canut revolts exemplified early instances of organized industrial worker resistance in , interpreted by historians as precursors to modern strikes amid the shift from artisanal to proletarian labor under . These events underscored the tensions between piece-rate wage systems and market fluctuations in the industry, fostering a among workers that transcended traditions. Despite their suppression, the revolts highlighted the viability of for economic demands, such as minimum pricing, even under legal bans on associations via the 1791 Le Chapelier Law. The uprisings spurred the creation of clandestine mutual aid societies and secret networks among silk weavers, numbering up to 250 members by late 1831, which functioned as proto-unions by pooling resources and coordinating actions. This organizational innovation influenced subsequent labor strategies in Lyon and beyond, embedding practices of solidarity and covert agitation that persisted until the legalization of unions in 1884. The reframing of canuts' identity from skilled craftsmen to "proletarians" during the revolts contributed to emerging republican and socialist discourses on class, emphasizing workers' structural disadvantage in industrial relations. In ideological terms, the 1831 revolt was characterized by as the inaugural working-class uprising of nascent , amplifying its resonance in Marxist analyses of as a catalyst for class antagonism awareness. The events' legacy extended to dynamics in labor, inspiring Lyon's first documented female silk worker strikes in , which culminated in the formation of France's inaugural female . Overall, while yielding no immediate legislative gains, the revolts symbolized futile yet formative violence in worker struggles, shaping narratives of resilience against exploitation in French and mutualism without altering core repressive policies.

Interpretations and Debates

Economic Causality vs. Ideological Framing

The Canut revolts stemmed fundamentally from economic pressures within Lyon's silk industry, where piece-rate wages—typically 1 to 2 francs per woven motif—plummeted amid post-1830 market saturation, overproduction, and reduced demand for luxury exports following the July Revolution's instability. Weavers, organized in mutual aid societies like the Société des Ferrandiniers, petitioned for a tarif minimum to enforce baseline payments against marchands-fabricants' arbitrary reductions, which could halve earnings in months of glut; this demand addressed immediate survival amid a sector employing over half of Lyon's 170,000 residents, not abstract political restructuring. The escalation, triggered by merchant-proposed cuts affecting specific motifs, similarly prioritized wage stabilization through general strikes, though republican mutualist networks provided organizational and slogans like "Vivre en travaillant ou mourir en combattant" infused rhetoric with anti-monarchical undertones. By , amid national revolutionary fervor, Canut participation aligned with broader republican aims, yet core actions retained economic foci, such as demands for work guarantees amid industrial slumps. Empirical records, including prefectural reports and strike manifests, underscore these material triggers over premeditated , with unrest correlating directly to price indices rather than doctrinal manifestos. Historiographical debates contrast this causality with ideological overlays, particularly in Marxist accounts portraying the events as proto-proletarian insurrections; Engels, drawing on secondhand reports, deemed 1831 the "first working-class rising" under , framing Canuts as harbingers of class war despite their artisanal, home-based production model diverging from factory proletarianism. Such views, echoed in left-influenced academia, often privilege narrative coherence—elevating sporadic republican alliances into systemic antagonism—over granular evidence of trade-specific bargaining, potentially reflecting biases toward retrofitting 19th-century disputes into modern labor paradigms. Primary causal chains, however, trace to verifiable market contractions: silk output exceeded demand by 20-30% in years, eroding livelihoods before political mobilization.

Achievements: Worker Solidarity vs. Failures: Violence and Futility

The Canut revolts exemplified worker solidarity through coordinated actions among Lyon's silk weavers, known as canuts, who numbered around 30,000 in 1831 and mobilized en masse against wage reductions amid economic downturns. In November 1831, strikers from silk production and allied trades marched in formation from the Croix-Rousse district, plundering arms and overwhelming initial resistance, which enabled them to besiege the town hall and establish ad hoc committees for self-governance over parts of the city for several days. This unity extended to mutual aid societies, such as the Société du Devoir Mutuel, which facilitated organization and resource sharing, marking one of the earliest documented instances of large-scale industrial collective action in France. Yet these displays of were undermined by escalating , as canuts resorted to and direct confrontations, resulting in approximately 600 during the 1831 clashes alone, including deaths from on November 22-23. The 1834 uprising, triggered by a of up to 60,000 workers in February, intensified into the "Bloody Week" of April 9-15, where rebels seized barracks and repelled early assaults, but government artillery and infantry inflicted over 600 victims, with estimates of 200-300 civilian deaths alongside 130 military losses. Such tactics, while born of desperation, alienated potential bourgeois allies like the —who sympathized in 1831 but withheld support in 1834—and invited overwhelming state retaliation under Soult's command. The revolts' futility is evident in their lack of enduring gains: the 1831 protective tariffs were revoked by December 3, the 1834 minimum pricing law was struck down, and no labor regulations materialized, leaving workers economically vulnerable as silk merchants decentralized production to evade future unrest. Repression followed swiftly, with 90 arrests and a permanent garrison imposed after 1831, and over 500 detained in 1834, many facing deportation or imprisonment after trials that convicted 163 rebels. Although the events fostered transient republican sentiments and worker networks, the absence of broader political strategy against the July Monarchy's military superiority rendered the uprisings pyrrhic, weakening the canut community without altering the proto-industrial exploitation inherent to Lyon's silk trade.

Historiographical Critiques of Left-Leaning Narratives

Left-leaning historiographical accounts, drawing from Friedrich Engels' characterization of the 1831 uprising as the "first working-class rising" of capitalist development, frequently depict the Canut revolts as embryonic proletarian insurrections heralding modern class conflict. This framing emphasizes the workers' mutual aid societies and demands for "to live working, working to live" as proto-socialist assertions against bourgeois exploitation, projecting 19th-century Marxist analytics onto pre-industrial artisan grievances. Such narratives, prevalent in academia despite evidence of systemic interpretive biases favoring heroism, overlook the Canuts' status as highly skilled, often self-employed in a decentralized , who primarily sought corporatist protections like enforced minimum tariffs on piecework to shield against merchant-imposed price cuts amid 1831's . Rather than advancing a universal class struggle, their actions reflected defensive efforts to maintain artisanal and guild-like privileges against market competition from cheaper imports and regional rivals, not a forward-looking on wage labor itself. Critics contend this romanticization minimizes the revolts' empirical failures: the 1831 action secured temporary concessions via prefectural intervention but collapsed under economic pressures, while 1834's brief republican proclamation devolved into sporadic violence, resulting in over 500 worker deaths and mass deportations without altering labor structures or inspiring sustained national solidarity. By downplaying the Canuts' limited political —evident in their reliance on Napoleonic-era mutualist networks over radical —and the necessity of state repression to restore order amid attacks on troops, these accounts distort causal realities, attributing mythic agency to events better explained by cyclical silk market disruptions than inherent capitalist contradictions.

References

  1. https://www.gadagne-lyon.fr/sites/gadagne/files/medias/documents/2020-12/MHL-Gadagne_ThemedSheet_19th-TheCanutRevolts.pdf
  2. https://libcom.org/article/french-silk-workers-revolt-1834
  3. https://www.academia.edu/28299617/A_HISTORICAL_CHAPTER_FROM_THE_LYONNAIS_SILK_INDUSTRY_REVOLT_OF_THE_SILK_WEAVERS
  4. https://marxist.com/the-lyon-silk-workers-uprisings-of-1831-and-1834.htm
  5. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/silk-workers-revolts
  6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8278110FAAC9CF098D3EA2B78D54602D/S002085900200069Xa.pdf/political_identity_and_worker_politics_silk_and_metalworkers_in_lyon_france_19001914.pdf
  7. https://shs.cairn.info/la-france-ouvriere--9782708231634-page-35?lang=fr
  8. https://www.archives-lyon.fr/expos/les-origines-du-mouvement-cooperatif
  9. https://mutualistes.com/histoire-mutualisme-mouvement-social/
  10. https://www.linflux.com/lyon-et-region/cest-novembre-les-canuts-reviennent-a-lyon/
  11. https://barricades.ac.uk/exhibits/show/lyon
  12. https://benublanc.com/en/blogs/soie-cosmetique/les-revoltes-des-canuts
  13. https://www.archives-lyon.fr/expos/les-origines-de-la-revolte-de-1831
  14. https://www.persee.fr/doc/r1848_1155-8806_1938_num_35_165_1316
  15. https://histoire-image.org/etudes/revolte-canuts
  16. https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/r%C3%A9volte_des_canuts/111578
  17. https://www.archives-lyon.fr/pages/1831-1834-la-revolte-des-canuts
  18. https://www.herodote.net/22_novembre_1831-evenement-18311122.php
  19. https://lyonbondyblog.fr/LBB/les-canuts-de-lyon-une-revolution-ouvriere-historique/
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/british-drama-of-the-industrial-revolution/weavers/6542D663DFBE508CA1289442C5B83276
  21. https://www.lopinion.fr/politique/la-parenthese-liberale-la-revolte-des-canuts-lambiguite-dun-mouvement-social
  22. https://shs.cairn.info/la-revolte-des-canuts--9782707152909-page-130?lang=fr
  23. https://www.gadagne-lyon.fr/sites/gadagne/files/medias/documents/2020-11/MHL-Gadagne_FicheTheme_19e-InsurrectionsDesCanuts.pdf
  24. https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/1834-La-revolte-des-canuts-est-ecrasee-5838
  25. https://www.herodote.net/9_avril_15_avril_1834-evenement-18340409.php
  26. https://sites.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/franfin.htm
  27. https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2022/08/15/finance-and-the-revolution-of-1848/
  28. https://www.archives-lyon.fr/expos/sur-les-traces-de-la-revolte-de-1848
  29. https://www.exploralyon.fr/?p=310
  30. https://www.persee.fr/doc/r1848_1265-1354_1998_num_16_1_2315
  31. https://museemilitairelyon.com/2022/02/03/la-revolte-des-canuts-de-1834/
  32. https://tribunedelyon.fr/societe/le-proces-monstre-des-canuts-a-paris/
  33. https://www.euronews.com/travel/2021/02/05/lyon-in-silk-a-history-of-the-industry-which-shaped-the-city
  34. https://journal-redescriptions.org/articles/378
  35. https://www.marxist.com/the-lyon-silk-workers-uprisings-of-1831-and-1834.htm
  36. http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-page-of-history-1834-canut-revolt-in.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.