LORD DERBY ON THE BLIND.
TORD DERBY spoke on Tuesday at Preston with the 4 strong common-sense which marks everything he says on economical and social questions. He is seen to greater advantage on occasions of this kind than on political occasions. We take the reason of this difference to be that the purely critical faculty has necessarily a paralysing influence in politics. Politics are a practical art, and speculation about them is valuable in so far as it leads to action. As a rule, pure criticism discourages action. In each particular case, there is usually more to be said against doing the thing proposed than can be said for doing it. It is only by keeping steadily in view the necessity of doing something, that we discover the line of least resistance, and learn at all events to detect the least among many evils. But in economical and social con- troversy, this necessity of doing something is seldom present. We have the option of leaving things alone, of allowing natural forces to determine the result without any interference from us. In a great number of cases this is the safest course that we can take, and the advantage of such criticism as Lord Derby's is, that it strengthens us to take it. He convinces us that the harm that is certain to follow from failure is out of all proportion to the good that may follow from success. In this way, inaction ceases to look like mere timidity, and takes the more dignified form of discretion.
On Tuesday, however, this critical faculty for once led to a positive result. Lord Derby's subject was the condition of the blind, and the best way of ameliorating it, and the special task he set himself was that of showing that the objections to which State help is ordinarily open do not apply to the case of the blind. If, in dealing with pauperism, we had only to consider the interests of the individuals actually needing help, the administration of the Poor-Law would be exceedingly simple. We should only have to get rid of the cases which no help will permanently benefit, and to do all we could to improve the condition of the remainder. Un- fortunately, however, we have to take into account the effect this policy would have in creating cases which can be per- manently benefited. There can be no question, for example, that if a clean sweep were made of all the children now in workhouses who are only there until it pleases their parents to go out, the children themselves would be immense gainers. They would be removed from the mischievous influence of bad companions and bad surroundings, and enjoy the advantage of a decent bringing-up. But what would be the effect on the parent What an inducement it would offer to come into the workhouse if by the mere fact of doing so, his children were at once taken off a man's hands, and brought up in a way which,
had they remained in his keeping, would have been for ever beyond their reach! The best points and the worst points in the
father's character, his love for his children and his love for himself, would be alike appealed to. He would give them a start in life, and he would save himself the cost of maintaining them. The consequence would be that children would be thrown upon the State in continually increasing numbers, until at last the rates would prove insufficient to meet the growing demand. In pauperising the community, we should have destroyed the fund out of which it must be maintained when pauperised.
The first question, therefore, we have to ask ourselves in dealing with a destitute and helpless class is, whether the help
it is proposed to give will tend to make the class larger. Ordinarily speaking, this consideration supplies a universal barrier to anything like a generous policy. We cannot
afford to make the lot of the deserving pauper pleasant, since if we did, the deserving paupers would soon be too numerous for us to relieve. In the case of the blind, this law has no existence. Nothing that can be done for them will increase their numbers. That is one great distinc- tion between blindness and the ordinary forms of distress. A second distinction' is that, unlike most forms of human suffer- ing, blindness shows no tendency to increase. There are many diseases which seem absolutely to thrive under the influence of civilisation. As the world improves, the disease seems to cover more ground, and to take deeper root. In one sense, this fact only gives the sufferers a greater claim on us ; but there is undoubtedly something serious in undertaking a burden which, for anything we can see, will continually grow heavier. In the case of blindness, however, the tendency is the other way. The proportion of blind persons to the whole population of England steadily decreases. In 1851, Lord Derby tells us, "there was one blind person to every 979 in 1881, one to every 1,138 ;" and as this progress was steadily maintained in the intervening decades, we may fairly hope to see it appear in future censuses. The reason is that congenital blindness is of rare occurrence. The sight is ordinarily lost in infancy by disease, and as the sani- tary conditions of the country improve, the complaints which produce blindness become less active. If the anti-vaccina- tionisto were to have their way, blindness would no doubt increase ; but so long as small-pox is discouraged by legis- lation, there is seemingly no cause of blindness, except accident, which does not promise to come more and more under control. It is a further advantage which blindness enjoys over other maladies, that the cans are not frequent. In 1881, there were 22,800 blind persons in England, and when from these are deducted those who have the means of main- taining themselves, the residuum is not unmanageably large.
Lord Derby lays great stress on the need of separate treat- ment for the blind. "When they mix with seeing persons, they are exposed, especially as children, to various influences
which are not to their advantage They are the 'poor blind.' Little or nothing is expected of them ; they have a claim on everybody's services, and need give none in return." On the other hand, when blind children are brought together into a common school, they learn first to help one another, and then to help themselves. In their own families it is almost impossible for them to do this. The contrast between their condition and that of people who have their eyesight is so striking, that it seems cruel to expect them to do things for themselves. The consequence is, that unless a child's character is exceptionally vigorous, the most impressionable years of life pass away without anything being done to make him in- dependent of others. His only idea of making a livelihood will be by appealing to that feeling of compassion which he has looked to all his early life. Now, quite apart from the fact that when this appeal has to be made to strangers it will meet with a very intermittent and imperfect response, children who grow up in this state of dependence remain ignorant of many sources of happiness which are really within their reach. What gives the blind enjoyment is not what is done for them, but what they can be taught to do for themselves. To those who begin young, this is a large field ; but it is also a field that cannot be occupied without a considerable outlay at starting. It must be remembered, however, that if we forego this expenditure, and leave the blind to grow up as they best can, they only come upon our pockets in another way. They sink into destitution, and destitution gives them a legal claim on the community. The choice lies, then, between spending money to enable the blind to support them- selves, at all events in some degree, and spending money to support them. Even if the former outlay make a heavier demand on us than the latter, the result is so much more satisfactory, that the preference may well be given to it. What is chiefly wanted is blind-schools and blind-workshops,—schools, because the blind require skilled and special teaching ; workshops, because it is improbable that any teaching will enable them to compete in the open market with workmen who have their sight. Their particular form of native industry does require protection. If a blind workman takes two days to do what another will do in one day, he must be paid double wages. It is in this form that the help for which he may fairly look fsune the Poor-Law authorities can best be given. Charitable effort may be trnsted probably to set such workshops going, and to arrange for the sale of the things made in them at the ordinary market price. But then, this ordinary market price will have to be increased so as to make up the
difference, whatever it is, between the worth of a blind man's day and the worth of another man's day, and the sum required for this purpose will probably be best provided out of a fund common to the whole country. The standing objection to a national Poor-rate—the temptation it holds out to each separate locality to gratify its benevolence at other people's expense, and so increase the pauperism which it does not visibly pay for—does not hold good here ; while if it be left to each district to say how much shall be spent on its own blind, they will be provided for in one place and neglected in another. A combination of this kind between voluntary effort and State relief has the advantage of being familiar, and of enlisting more intelligent and discriminating activity than is often to be had under a system such as the Poor-Law. There are many people who cannot give money on anything like a great scale, who can yet give time and thought and interest,— and these are precisely the things which we want to enlist in the service of the blind.
Previous page
