Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Struggle for the Eight-Hour Workday. The Strike of Hennebont, 1906

  • Chapter
Alphonse Merrheim

Part of the book series: Studies in Social History ((SISH,volume 8))

  • 22 Accesses

Abstract

Just one year after Merrheim’s discovery of the Lorraine and its problems, he became involved in the CGT’s largest single strike effort to date. On May 1,1906, the CGT launched a national strike movement hoping to force the government to reduce the legal workday for all industrial workers to eight hours.1 The difficulties Merrheim encountered in preparing for the May Day strikes and their dubious outcome set back his revolutionary resolve another decisive step.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Excellent introductions to the May Day movement and the history of the general strike in France are: Maurice Dommanget, Histoire du premier mai (Paris, 1953) and Robert Brécy, La Grève générale en France (Paris, 1969); see also Peter Stearns, ‘Against the Strike Threat. Employers’ Policy Towards Labor Agitation in France, 1900–1914’, in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 40, no. 4, December 1968, pp. 474–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. CGT XIVe Congrès national corporatif (Bourges, 1904) pp. 205–207 (for the committee’s proposal); pp. 204–220 (for the full debate); pp. 219–220 (for the results of the voting).

    Google Scholar 

  3. AN, F7, 13267, note M/1919 of Paris, December 11, 1905

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alohonse Merrheim, in OM, no. 154, October 1, 1904, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See ‘Congrès régional des Ouvriers Métallurgsstes de la Région du Nord, tenu à Lille, le 19 Mars, 1905, Compte rendu’, in OM, no. 160, March 1, 1905, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The manifesto is in OM, no. 161, April 1, 1905, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. UFOM, XIIe Congrès national des Ouvriers Métallurgistes (Paris, 1905), pp. 288–295 (report of the Commission on the Eight-Hour Workday), pp. 296–297 (the resolution calling for the eight-hour workday and a propaganda campaign for May 1, 1906).

    Google Scholar 

  8. For instance, on December 25, 1905, a typical day for Merrheim, he conducted a two-hour meeting at Vichy and immediately went to the next city for another. See ‘Les Meetings des huit heures’, in VP, no. 273, January 7–14, 1906, p. 3; also see no. 272, January 1–7, 1906, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. AN, F7, 12890, note 4,656 of January 19, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  10. CGT, Conférence des Fédérations. Journées des 5 et 6 Avril 1906 (Brochure 8, 40 pp., n.d., n.p.).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid., pp. 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., pp. 27–28; p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid., pp. 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., pp. 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., pp. 39–40. See also ‘Résolutions de la Conférence des Fédérations’, in VP, no. 287 April 15–21, 1906, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Le Temps, April 25, 1906, p. 2, and AN, F7, 13267, April 24, 1906, M/741.

    Google Scholar 

  19. The first formal study of the strike was by Alphonse Merrheim, ‘Un Grand Conflit socia. La Grève d’Hennebont’, pt. I, in Le Mouvement Socialiste, no. 180 November 1906, pp. 194–218; pt. II, no. 181, December 1906, pp. 347–379. Hereafter cited as ‘Un Grand Con-flit social’, pt. I and pt. II.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ‘Un Grand Conflit social’ pt. I, pp. 197–198.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., pp. 202–207.

    Google Scholar 

  22. AN, F7, 12765, note of Hennebont, December 11, 1905 (dossier ‘Morbihan’).

    Google Scholar 

  23. AN, F7, 12786, note of April 4, 1906 (dossier ‘Lorient’).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., note of April 10, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  25. AN F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, April 15, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., also note no. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  27. AN, F7, 12786, note of April 22, 1906 (dossier ‘préfet’). There are two reports in this dossier, with the same date, that deal with this meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  28. There are several reports that concern this meeting some more detailed than others. See, for example, ibid., note of April 23, 1906 (from ‘préfet à Commerce et Intérieur’, and note of Hennebont, April 23, 1906. The most satisfactory and detailed reports, however, are those of Vannes, April 26, 1906. The general route reports followed was from the commissioner of police to the prefect of Morbihan, who had his headquarters in Vannes, and from the prefect to Paris. The prefect also sent his own usually detailed reports to the capita.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Although the strike broke out before May 1, it was part of the CGT’s May Day eight-hour workday movement. See UFOM, XIIIe Congrbs national des Ouvriers Métallurgistes (Paris, 1907), pp. 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  30. AN, F7, 12786, note of Vannes, April 28, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid., note of Hennebont, May 2, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid., note of Hennebont, May 3, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  33. For Sélaquet’s participation in the strike, see ibid., note of Hennebont, May 4, 1906. To follow these events, also see ibid. This carton is a mine of information; it contains daily police reports on the strike.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See ibid., notes of Hennebont, May 17, 1906 and May 26, 1906. Merrheim did not arrive on time and the next few meetings were taken over by others. See ibid., note of Hennebont, June 1, 1906. For his first speech on June 2, see Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan, June 7, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  35. For these accusations, see Alphonse Merrheim, in OM, no. 176, July 1, 1906, p. 1. See also ibid., no. 177, August 1, 1906, p. 3 and Alphonse Merrheim, in VP, no. 301, July 15–22, 1906, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  36. AN, F7, 12786, note of Lorient, April 27, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  37. For the report and information on Kerbastard, see ibid., note of Lorient, April 27, 1906. For Merrheim’s assessment, see Alphonse Merrheim, in OM, no, 177, August 1, 1906, p. 2. See also Alphonse Merrheim, in VP, no. 303 July 29-August 5, 1906, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, June 15, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  39. UFOM, XIIe Congrès national des Ouvriers Métallurgistes (Paris, 1907), pp. 226–227.

    Google Scholar 

  40. AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, June 2, 1906 (from ‘le commissarre de Dolice d’Hennebont au préfet de Morbihan à Vannes’); and ibid., note of Hennebont, June 2, 1906 (from ‘Le Préfet de Morbihan à L’Intérieu, Cabinet et Sûreté Paris’).

    Google Scholar 

  41. AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, June 2, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  42. AN, F7, 13771 (‘le Mouvement syndicale dans la métallurgie [historique]’, n.d).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., note of Hennebont, June 19, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid., note of Vannes, June 22, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  45. AN F7, 13772, note of Paris June 28, 1906, M/1268.

    Google Scholar 

  46. This information is from the secret report of ‘A Correspondant’, in AN, F7, 12786, June 14, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Not only would Merrheim have to negotiate with capitalists and government officials to end the strike, but syndicalists reluctantly watched socialists assist in this matter. See ibid., note of July 2, 1906; note of August 9 1906; and note of August 10, 1906. The last two reports state that because a socialist deputy intervened, the minister of war granted a reprieve of twenty eight days to all strikers being called for military duty. The minister acknowledged that the strike had caused considerable hardship for the workers.

    Google Scholar 

  48. ‘Un Grand Conflit social’ pt. II, p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Several sources cover this meeting, See L’Humanité, no. 808, July 4, 1906, p. 2, and no. 809 July 5, 1906, p. 2; AN, F7, 12786, July 5, 1906; ‘Un Grand Conflit social’ pt. II, pp. 359–361; and especially Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan July 8, 1906, which is more detailed than the other sources.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Le Nouveiliste du Morbihan, July 8, 1906, and ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 360–361. See also L’Humanité, no. 809, July 5, 1906, p 2

    Google Scholar 

  51. Merrheim’s account in ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 367–373, agrees in all its essentials with police reports being filed during the events. Moreover Merrheim admitted that his call for an end to the strike was unpopular with many workers.

    Google Scholar 

  52. For reprint of this letter dated August 1, 1906, see Alphonse Merrheim, ‘A Hennebont’, in VP, no 304, August 5–12, 1906, p. 2, and ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II. p. 368.

    Google Scholar 

  53. AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, August 2, 1906; note of Hennebont, August 3, 1906; note of Hennebont, August 4, 1906; also note of Hennebont, August 5, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid., note of Hennebont, August 5, 1906 (two reports with the same date); AN, F7, 13772, note of August 5 [1906] (dossier ‘Union Fédérale des Ouvriers Métallurgistes 1906’, pp. 12–26); see also AN, F7, 13772, note of August 6 [1906] dossier ‘Union Fédérale des Ouvriers Métallurgistes, 1906’, pp. 12–25).

    Google Scholar 

  55. AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, August 4, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  56. ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 368–369, and L’Humanité, August 9, 1906, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  57. For Merrheim’s suggestion, see AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, August 6, 1906. Full details of the meeting at which these terms were agreed upon are in ibid., note of Hennebont, August 9, 1906. A full list of the terms of the settlement is provided by Merrheim, ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 369–370.

    Google Scholar 

  58. For a copy of this poster, entitled ‘Avis aux ouvriers des forges d’Hennebont’, see AN, F7, 12786 (n.d., in the dossier ‘du préfet de Morbihan au ministre de l’intérieur’, dated August 12, 1906). For a statement of his position, see ibid., note of Hennebont, August 10, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid., see the meetings of August 10 and 11, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ibid., note of Hennebont, August 12, 1906; and ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, II, pp. 371–373.

    Google Scholar 

  61. AN, F7, 12786, note of August 12, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  62. ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, p. 372.

    Google Scholar 

  63. This speech is in AN, F7, 12786, note of Hennebont, August 12, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  65. ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 377–378. For the overall conclusions, see pp. 375–379; Merrheim’s emphasis.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Louis Levine, The Labor Movement in France (New York, 1914). p. 169, and ‘Un Grand Conflit social’, pt. II, pp. 375–379.

    Google Scholar 

  67. UFOM, XIIe Congrés national des Ouvriers Métailurgistes (Paris, 1907), pp. 162–164.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Edouard Dolléans, Histoire du mouvement ouvrier, (Paris, 1939; reprint ed., Paris, 1957), vol. II, p. 171; also Edouard Dolléans, Alphonse Merrheim (Paris, 1939), pp. 13–14. Jean Montreull (Georges Lefranc) has the same information in his Histoire du mouvement ouvrier en France, des origines à nos jours (Paris, 1946), p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Office du Travail, Statistiques des grèves, 1906, pp. 781–783.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Nicholas Papayanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Papayanis, N. (1985). The Struggle for the Eight-Hour Workday. The Strike of Hennebont, 1906. In: Alphonse Merrheim. Studies in Social History, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5155-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5155-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8781-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5155-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation