Charitable provision for blind people and deaf people in late nineteenth century London

Abstract

In nineteenth century England much charitable activity was directed towards the relief of poverty, but such provision developed significantly to support a variety of requirements. Although from the eighteenth century onwards there were instances of co-operation between voluntary charitable effort and the state, governments in the early and mid Victorian era tended to be cautious about intervention. During this period and beyond, voluntary provision was frequently underpinned by a desire that individuals in receipt of charity should as far as possible be self-reliant and contribute in some way towards the costs of their upkeep; that they should not become unnecessarily a burden on the State; and that donations and subscriptions given for the purposes of supporting and furthering charitable activities should be expended with care, with an emphasis upon obtaining good value for money spent. These criteria were applied also to charities which were active in providing for those with disabilities. These charities included the ones designed to meet the particular needs of blind people and deaf people in London which are the focus of this study and where demand for such facilities was high. These criteria, with their emphasis upon self-help, are a legacy from nineteenth century voluntary effort and shaped the nature of much charitable activity in the twentieth century as reflected in the images by which many charities are represented even today. 1 The writers are aware that they may not on occasion have employed politically correct language in describing certain disabilities and in the use of words such as 'infirm' and 'deaf and dumb' because the terminology of the period has been employed.

The continuing violence towards disabled people

“…In 19th‐century Britain, there was a tendency to isolate disabled people from the society and place them in institutions (Lees and Ralph, ; Wright, ). The medical model of disability, with a focus on the medicalisation of the body (Terzi, ) and the physiological condition, can lead to a separation of the person so that the disability becomes the individual.…”