A village petition and factory statistics in Meiji Tokushima
In 1887 the headman of a village in Tokushima Prefecture petitioned the prefectural governor. He wrote that 40 households had once spun cotton thread by hand, but that 31 households now bought machine-spun yarn from Osaka; 12 young women had left for a silk-reeling factory, and three families had lost land after borrowing to buy looms. A prefectural statistical table for 1893 records 18 factories in the district, 640 workers, and exports of indigo worth ¥210,000, up from ¥80,000 in 1880. A local newspaper in 1894 praised the new Tokushima railway as “bringing the port within reach of the loom.” The village petition asks for a low-interest loan fund and a night school for weavers. The prefectural assembly must decide whether to fund the loan, the school, both, or neither, with a fixed budget of ¥50,000.
1. What evidence in the sources shows both economic growth and an uneven distribution of its benefits? Use specific figures.
Read the worked answer
Growth is visible in the 1893 table: 18 factories and 640 workers in the district, and indigo exports rising from ¥80,000 in 1880 to ¥210,000 in 1893, a 2.6-fold increase. The newspaper's praise of the railway points to improved transport and market access. Taken alone, these figures support the view that the district was industrializing and exporting more.
Yet the 1887 petition shows that the benefits were not shared evenly. Of 40 households that once hand-spun cotton, 31 now bought machine-spun yarn from Osaka, meaning the local hand-spinning livelihood had largely been displaced. Twelve young women left for factory work, which may be new wage employment but also removes them from the village. Three families lost land after borrowing to buy looms, a direct sign that adapting to the new technology could create debt and land loss. The growth figures are aggregate; the petition shows households absorbing risk and loss within the same change.
2. How reliable is the 1887 petition as evidence of village conditions? Identify one strength and one limitation.
Read the worked answer
A strength is that the petition is a contemporary, local, specific account. It names household counts and mechanisms - 31 of 40 buying Osaka yarn, 12 women leaving, three families losing land after loom loans - rather than offering a vague complaint. It gives access to the perspective of villagers who do not appear in factory statistics.
A limitation is that the petition is an appeal for a loan fund and a night school. The headman has an incentive to emphasize hardship and to present the village as deserving of aid. It covers one village and may not represent the district; it also does not show whether the 40 households were typical or whether some households benefited from factory work. The statistical table is more systematic but counts factories and exports, not household debt. The newspaper is promotional. The petition is therefore valuable as evidence of perceived hardship and local strategy, but it should be checked against tax, land, and wage records before being treated as a district-wide description.
3. Recommend whether the assembly should fund the loan, the school, both, or neither, and explain how your choice follows from the evidence.
Read the worked answer
The evidence points to a structural shift rather than a temporary crisis: machine-spun yarn has displaced hand spinning, and factory/export growth is real. A loan that simply helps households buy more looms risks repeating the debt problem that caused three families to lose land. A night school that teaches weavers to maintain equipment, keep accounts, and adapt to factory or workshop work addresses the cause of displacement - changed production - rather than only its symptom.
A defensible allocation is therefore to fund the school first, with a smaller loan component targeted to households that can show a viable market and cannot otherwise adapt. For example, the assembly could divide the ¥50,000 between the school and a small revolving loan fund with repayment terms and advice. This responds to the 12 women leaving and the 31 households buying yarn, while limiting moral hazard from blanket loom subsidies. Funding neither would ignore the transition; funding only the loan would overinvest in a technology already shifting.