The price to pay to be buried within Derby and the rest of Britain during the Victorian age held much of an impact as it still does to this day. During the Victorian period, there were multiple types of funerals, starting from a pauper funeral (better known as a pauper grave), to funerals that were led by undertakers and were accented by elaborate headstones that memorialised the dead laid to rest. This page will lay out and analyse the different prices to pay to be able to be buried and commemorate the dead.

Starting with the burials of those of the lower classes – those below the poverty line who may not have been able to afford the fees that came along with the burial of a loved one – one way that the cost of burials were commonly afforded was through joining a parish burial club. “Most burial-club members were probably below the classes leaving gravestones, fearing a pauper burial and being concerned to provide for a respectable funeral. Such clubs normally paid for the funeral, not for an enduring memorial”, and as most members of this club would be aware that there was unlikely to be a headstone to commemorate themselves (or a loved one), it shows that there was a stigma surrounding a pauper burial.¹ As “majority of burials in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were unmarked by any long-lasting stone memorial, or even perhaps by a significant wooden memorial”, it becomes clear that even though there would be little to commemorate the dead, the stigma of not being able to afford to be buried was huge amongst the lower classes and could further suggest a tension amongst the lower classes to be able to afford to join one of these clubs and avoid a pauper burial.²

“The period 1880-1914 was characterised by changes in the material culture of working-class life: increased wages coupled with a rapidly expanding consumer market raised living standards. However, that also raised expectations”, and so because of this raise in expectations, much like those who joined their parish burial clubs, the lower classes expected to be able to be buried with a higher level of respect.³ Even though there was a raise in wages, which resulted in a raise in how lower classes lived, “in this context, the cultural distinctions between the frugal pauper and the private (consumer) burial hardened” as there was still the realisation that the lower classes were still not able to afford to be buried with the same kind of care and respect as those of higher classes simply due to the funds that they had.⁴ This realisation that even though the quality of life was improving for the lower classes through this rise in wages (which were able to see lower class families out of the darkness of hand to mouth living and into the consumer boom) there was still the fact that burials with long lasting memorials was a commodity that few could still afford.

“Hostility to pauper burials derived not only from the shame of poverty but also from the inability to claim ownership of the dead and the denial of mourning customs”⁵

Strange, J.M. ‘Only a pauper whom nobody owns: reassessing the pauper grave c.1880-1914.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 148-175

On the other end of the scale, those of a higher class who could afford to spend their income on their funeral and to pay for a burial with a lasting memorial, a lot of money could be spent to make sure the funeral proceedings go well. Undertakers were often employed to take charge and to ensure that the dead get the burial that they deserve, and it often led to being extremely expensive for the families of the dead. An undertaker, “Miller made detailed entries of the funeral paraphernalia he employed … by far the most elaborate funeral he staged was that of Captain Kennedy on 28 May 1810, “A military style funeral” at a total cost of £289-0-9”, which is in stark contrast to those of lower classes who had to resort to joining a parish burial club simply because funeral costs were too much for them to be able to afford.⁶ While undertakers were most likely to be seen within cities and less so amongst the lower classes, this can be explained by the fact that those within cities tended to be those of a higher class as cities had much more opportunity than rural towns which tended to be populated by the lower classes as it was simply cheaper to live as well as more opportunities for work due to vast amounts of farmland.

“Because, from its inception, the undertaking trade was solely a profit-driven enterprise, it was slow to develop in the smaller towns, villages, and rural areas. There the older, more traditional ways for the disposal of the dead remained in use well into the nineteenth century and beyond”⁷

Fritz, P.S. ‘The undertaking trade in England: its origins and early development, 1660-1830.’ Eighteenth-Century Studies, 28.3 (1994-1995), pp. 241-253

A more specific example would be that of a York cemetery as the “York Cemetery Company ensured that their site was conveniently located for the lower classes and led the way in the region for affordable cemetery burial for the poor. Public graves were available at a sliding scale of costs, with the lowest price merely recouping the company’s basic outlay”, this suggests that, even though York was a city (albeit not as busy as London), it acknowledged that personal circumstance affected the quality of how people were buried, and sought ways to change this.⁸ By allowing the burials to be so cheap compared to those run by undertakers, for example, played a key part in what makes this York cemetery so unique, and should have been implemented among other areas of Britain, and would have resulted in a much more developed relationship with death and commemoration. 

Footnotes

¹Snell, K.D.M. ‘Gravestones, Belonging and Local Attachment in England 1700-2000.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 97-134

²Snell, K.D.M. ‘Gravestones, Belonging and Local Attachment in England 1700-2000.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 97-134

³Strange, J.M. ‘Only a pauper whom nobody owns: reassessing the pauper grave c.1880-1914.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 148-175

⁴Strange, J.M. ‘Only a pauper whom nobody owns: reassessing the pauper grave c.1880-1914.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 148-175

⁵Strange, J.M. ‘Only a pauper whom nobody owns: reassessing the pauper grave c.1880-1914.’ Past & Present, 179 (2003), pp. 148-175

⁶Fritz, P.S. ‘The undertaking trade in England: its origins and early development, 1660-1830.’ Eighteenth-Century Studies, 28.3 (1994-1995), pp. 241-253

⁷Fritz, P.S. ‘The undertaking trade in England: its origins and early development, 1660-1830.’ Eighteenth-Century Studies, 28.3 (1994-1995), pp. 241-253

⁸Buckham, S. ‘Commemoration as an expression of personal relationships and group identities: a case study of York Cemetery’. Mortality, 8.2 (2003), pp. 160-175