- 1 -

To Die For--The Victorian Way of Death1 Victorians dealt with death in a variety of ways; ways which ranged from the simplest to the most elaborate. For the middle and higher classes, whether professionals, merchants, industrialists, nobility or royalty there was a strict code, a ritualization of the processes of mourning and funerals. For the lower and labouring classes, there was much less formality, but there were certainly options, provided by undertakers, that were aimed at these classes.

Looking back at funeral practices in the reign of Victoria, a number of questions are raised: why did Victorians choose to ritualize death, what were the rituals in which they engaged, what were the outward trappings of mourning, and how and where did they dispose of the deceased. There is a clear association with death and religion. Christian doctrine, especially that of the Roman Catholic Church, believes in “life after death” and “life everlasting.” Others hold the view that the time of death is when one celebrates the life of the deceased. It can be argued that during Queen Victoria’s long reign, the celebration of death reached its peak, which raises the further question of the degree to which the death, funeral, and grieving for Prince Albert affected the pattern of British mourning. Funerals were big business and were designed for all levels of society. At their most elaborate, they could bring even the great metropolis to a standstill. When the Queen's Consort, Prince Albert, died in December of 1861, the whole of the realm went into mourning. Church bells were tolled throughout the land; churches held special services and shops in many towns were closed. Window blinds in many homes were lowered and kept down as a sign of respect and “no respectable people appeared about except in mourning.”2 Certainly, all the reports suggest that Great Britain came to a virtual halt. However, this was not unique, for when the Duke of Wellington died nine years earlier, more than 65,000 people came to see him lying in state and on the day of the funeral, bells in the Tower Hamlets were tolling at minute intervals throughout the day. Moreover, according to The Times, ninety percent of shops were fully closed and the remainder partially so, flags on public buildings were at half-mast, and there were no mail deliveries in the afternoon.3 While it would have been impossible for the death of a reigning monarch or a national hero not to be celebrated in such style, for some of the famous it was possible to avoid such a funeral. Charles Dickens, in his will, specifically abjured the pomp that one might have expected to accompany the funeral of such a beloved figure. He also forbade all the “‘mockery of woe’ which undertakers are at such pains to provide.” He

1 This paper is based, in part, on material from my blog at http://www.vichist.blogspot.com

2 Richard Davey, A History of Mourning (London, 1889), p. 88.

3 "The Funeral of the Duke of Wellington," The Times (London, 19 November 1852), p. 5+.

- 2 -

was buried in Westminster Abbey in a plain oak coffin with only fourteen mourners present.4 Undertakers seem to have been regarded by many with distaste if not revulsion. One writer in The Leisure Hour in 1862 described the business as extortionate.

In numberless instances the interment of the dead is in the hands of miscreants, whom it is almost flattery to compare to the vulture, or the foulest carrion bird. . . the morality is, in their hands, to use a plain word, robbery.

Anyone could set up as an undertaker, but approximately sixty percent were “only undertaker’s jackalls[sic].” Their sole function appears to have been little more than transmitting orders to genuine undertakers. Even some of these had others who turned the business over to them for onward transmission. Each of those in the chain took a cut, thereby making the cost of a funeral all the more expensive.5 In addition to those directly involved in the funeral industry, there were those who supplied all of the paraphernalia required. In 1869, Cassell’s Household Guide listed, in addition to the coffin maker, at least half-a-dozen other trades and service providers all of whom “supply at first-hand the furnishing undertaker, who, in his turn, supplies the trade and the public.”6 Thus, the bereaved were often led into spending more than was either necessary or desirable and paying inflated prices for no purpose other than to increase the profits of those in the industry. Funerals were, for many of the bereaved, a form of conspicuous consumption. Moreover, the various trappings associated with mourning required the most fashionable mourning dress and the greatest possible display. Those in the business of burying the dead or providing the necessary peripherals were never short on the creation of ways to increase their profits. It was commonly, for example, believed that it was bad luck to wear the same mourning clothes to more than one funeral, a practice that would undoubtedly have those selling women’s mourning frocks rubbing their hands with glee (in a most circumspect manner, of course). In discussing conspicuous consumption, Thorsten Veblen noted that fashion (and this clearly applies to mourning fashion) “is good prima facie evidence of pecuniary success and consequently prima facie evidence of social worth.”7 Not only is dress important, as we shall see, mourning itself can be viewed as a form of conspicuous leisure. Certainly in the “better classes,” it would seem to fit that particular perception. The very idea of mourning lasting up to three years and going through clearly defined stages with different categories of clothing for women at each stage suggests a combination of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure.

4 George Augustus Sala, Charles Dickens (London, 1870), pp. 111-12.

5 “Funeral Expenses,” The Leisure Hour; An Illustrated Magazine for Home Reading, Vol. XI (London, 1862), p. 762.

6 “Death in the Household,” Cassell’s Household Guide (London, 1869), pp. 291-92.

7 Thorsten Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, 1915), p. 170.

- 3 -

Not everyone profited from a funeral. When a funeral became a major event, it had ramifications for tradesmen as well. In a letter to the editor, a linen-draper, writing to The Times when King George IV took ill, noted that he “had just completed … spring purchases”. As a result of the announcement of the King’s illness, his very successful trade in “coloured silks, prints, ribands, and every kind of fancy and coloured goods” had stopped. Moreover, he went on, “all my hopes are blighted … and I shall be ruined.”8 Another writer to the same paper commented on the “total stagnation which that great portion of trade depending upon fashion is now labouring under, from the anticipation of a public mourning.”9 Three weeks later, the King died and a period of general mourning was declared which lasted 45 days. When the period of general mourning was brought to a close, on 11 August, it was “evidently . . . dictated by a considerate regard to the injury which the manufacturers . . . sustained by the event.”10 Again, on the death of the Duke of Wellington, all military in the United Kingdom were ordered into full mourning.11 Letters appeared in The Times pointing out the impact that different periods of mourning would have on trade.12 As always, there were some who, even in such an event as the death of Wellington, could see the opportunity to turn a profit. A report on the state of trade from Nottingham noted that “black lace will no doubt be much required.”13 However, in general, those who dealt in cloth, ready-made clothes, and accessories were likely to suffer the most unless they were in the specialized world of mourning. With the death of Queen Victoria, on 22 January 1901, the Secretary to the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, wrote to The Times pointing out that the twelve months of Court Mourning would profoundly impact on the retail drapery trade since drapers ordered their products three or four months in advance. He went on to propose that the Earl Marshall fix a shorter period of public mourning; suggesting three months.14 Whether in response to the request or for other reasons, the period of deep mourning for the public was set to end on 6 March with half-mourning to follow until 17 April a total of just under three months. Notable deaths appear to have led to more extensive advertising of the goods and services associated with mourning and funerals. Shortly after the demise of the Duke of Wellington, and before his funeral, numerous appeals to mourners were found in

8 A Linendraper, “Letters to the Editor,” The Times (London, 4 June 1830), p. 3.

9 An Observer, “Letters to the Editor,” The Times (London, 2 June 1830), p. 2.

10 The Times (London, 10 August 1830), p. 2.

11 The Times (London, 18 September 1852), p. 5.

12 “Death of the Duke of Wellington,” The Times (London, 24 September 1852), p. 6.

13“State of Trade,” The Times (London, 20 September 1852), p. 3.

14 Jos. R. Quilter. “Letters to the Editor,” The Times (London, 26 January 1901), p. 14.

- 4 -

The Times. Jay’s Mourning Warehouse in Regent Street, for example, advertised that “every article of the very best description requisite for a complete outfit of mourning may be had at this establishment at a moment’s notice.”15 A fortnight later a number of advertisements appeared offering prices for funerals of different kinds. At least one made specific reference to the use of intermediaries saying that the bereaved should contact

In the first instance … SHILLIBEER’s office, instead of the nearest upholsterer, draper, or undertaker, who not possessing the requirements, resorts to furnishers to hire them, and consequently inflicts twofold profits.16

This particular advertisement, from a firm located in Brighton, quoted funerals from £4 to £8 for a tradesman’s or artisan’s funeral and £30 for that of a nobleman. The two London firms which advertised on the same day offered cheaper rates with an artisan’s funeral for as little as £3/15/0. In addition to the undertaking companies and the general suppliers of mourning apparel, specialist houses offered every conceivable kind of paraphernalia required to demonstrate “proper” mourning. In November of 1852, for example, the Parisian Millinery Depot, with two locations in Cranbourn Street, offered “mourning bonnets, of best patent crape, 10s.6d. to 14s.6d.; widows’, with veil, 14s. 6d. to 18s. 6d.”17

While funerals of the royalty, nobility or popular heroes were, of course, the exception, there seems to have been a funeral available for everyone as evidenced in mid-century advertising in The Times.18 The Necropolis Company offered six classes of funerals ranging in price from £21 for a first-class burial down to £3/5, for the sixth class. Even these prices could be reduced further “by dispensing with the funeral cortege through the streets of London.” Instead, the Necropolis Company suggested that the body be taken by special train from their private station to Woking Cemetery “to relieve the public from unnecessary and costly display.” Cassell’s, in 1869, listed eight levels ranging from £3/5 to £53. At the lower end of the scale, a funeral would consist of a single horse-drawn hearse and a smooth elm coffin, but for the family willing to spend £53 the funeral could include a

hearse and four horses, two mourning coaches with fours, twenty-three plumes of rich ostrich-feathers, complete velvet covering for carriages and horses, and an esquire's plume of best feathers; strong elm shell, with tufted mattress, lined and ruffled with superfine cambric, and pillow; full worked glazed cambric winding-sheet, stout outside lead coffin, with inscription plate and solder complete; one and a half inch oak case, covered with black or crimson velvet, set with three rows round, and lid panelled with best brass nails; stout brass plate of inscription, richly engraved; four pairs of best brass handles and grips, lid ornaments to correspond; use of silk velvet pall; two mutes with gowns, silk hat-bands and

15 The Times (London, 22 September 1852), p. 3.

16 The Times (London, 7 October 1852), p. 9.

17 The Times (London, 8 November 1852), p. 11.

18 “Necropolis.” The Times (4 June 1856), p. 1.

- 5 -

gloves; fourteen men as pages, feathermen, and coachmen, with truncheons and wands, silk hat-bands, &c.; use of mourners' fittings ; and attendant with silk hat-band, &c.19

Funeral costs were compounded by all sorts of elements. If the deceased was to be buried with no expense spared, all those who were attending the funeral would be collected by mourning coaches and brought to the home of the deceased from whence the funeral cortege was to depart.20 If one was attending a funeral or entering a period of mourning, one needed to dress accordingly. There were outfitters prepared to provide appropriate clothing and other elements to the discerning mourner. The London General Mourning Warehouse located at 247 and 249 Regent Street advertised in The Times that “millinery, dresses, cloaks, shawls, mantles, &c., of the best quality can be purchased at the most reasonable prices.”21 Business must have been good, for, by the 1870s, The London General Mourning Warehouse had taken over properties on either side and now advertised at 245-251 Regent Street. Here it offered, in The Pall Mall Gazette, “a Black Dress made up complete, sufficient Print for a Dress, also a Bonnet, Mantle or Shawl and Gloves, for 3gs.”22 In addition to such large firms, there were many smaller ones and even those that specialized in particular articles of clothing. The Misses Lewis, for example, advertised as “mourning milliners” in the late 1840s.23 Not only was the family expected to mourn (and to dress appropriately), the family's servants might be required to wear mourning clothing. Peter Robinson's at 256 to 262 Regent Street advertised “Mourning for servants supplied exceptionally cheap,” and offered to send “experienced dressmakers and milliners” anywhere in England “with goods for selection and to take orders” at no charge to the mourning family.24 Both Peter Robinson's and Jay's (also in Regent Street) offered to conduct funerals, in London or the country although it is likely that they acted as middle-men, arranging for an undertaker to do the funeral while taking a profit for themselves. Then, as now, there were always those who were ready to prey on the grieving. In one particularly bold instance, while the servants were being fitted for mourning clothes, and the body of the deceased was still in the house, thieves took the opportunity to sneak into the Butler’s Pantry and make off with the family plate-chest.25

19 “Death in the Household,” p. 292.

20 “Death in the Household,” p. 315.

21 The Times (London, 1 November 1845), p. 9.

22 Pall Mall Gazette (London, 16 December 1872), p. 3.

23 The Times (London, 6 February 1849), p. 11.

24 “Family Mourning,” The Times (London, 2 December 1881), p. 12.

25 “Police,” The Times (London, 16 May 1843), p. 7.

- 6 -

By the middle of the century, funerals had become such big business that Mr. Punch was drawn to comment on it. Referring to advertisements to perform funerals, he commented that there must be “different qualities of grief ... according to the price you pay.”

For £2 10s., the regard is very small. For £5, the sighs are deep and audible. For £7 10s. the woe is profound, only properly controlled; but for £10, the despair bursts through all restraint, and the mourners water the ground, no doubt, with their tears.26

Perhaps Mr. Punch had been reading Charles Manby Smith’s Curiosities of London Life for certainly Manby’s acerbic comments on the funeral industry might just as easily have appeared in Punch.

Here, when you enter his gloomy penetralia, and invoke his services, the sable-clad and cadaverous- featured shopman asks you, in a sepulchral voice-we are not writing romance, but simple fact - whether you are to be suited for inextinguishable sorrow, or for mere passing grief; and if you are at all in doubt upon the subject, he can solve the problem for you, if you lend him your confidence for the occasion. . . .Messrs. Moan and Groan know well enough, that when the heart is burdened with sorrow, considerations of economy are likely to be banished from the mind as out of place, and disrespectful to the memory of the departed; and, therefore, they do not affront their sorrowing patrons with the sublunary details of pounds, shillings, and pence. ... For such benefactors to womankind - the dears - of course no reward can be too great; and, therefore, Messrs. Moan and Groan, strong in their modest sense of merit, make no parade of prices. They offer you all that in circumstances of mourning you can possibly want; they scorn to do you the disgrace of imagining that you would drive a bargain on the very brink of the grave; and you are of course obliged to them for the delicacy of their reserve on so commonplace a subject, and you pay their bill in decorous disregard of the amount. It is true, that certain envious rivals have compared them to birds of prey, scenting mortality from afar, and hovering like vultures on the trail of death, in order to profit by his dart; but such “caparisons,” as Mrs. Malaprop says, “are odorous,” and we will have nothing to do with them.27

Although expected to mourn, women were advised against attending funerals, especially for those nearest and dearest to them. Cassell's Household Guide discouraged the practice pointing out that it is something done by female relatives in the poorer classes. There was, too, the fear that women, “being unable to restrain their emotions … [would] interrupt and destroy the solemnity of the ceremony with their sobs, and even by fainting.”28 It may also have been the case that the frequent practice of drinking both before and after the funeral not only by the funeral party but by the undertaker and his assistants, would have been upsetting. According to the secretary of an English burial society, at some funerals the pall-bearers had so much to drink that they “reeled in carrying the coffin.” Mutes were amongst the worst, sometimes

26 “Performers in ‘The Grave Scene’,” Punch (London, 17 October 1857), p. 163.

27 Charles Manby Smith, Curiosities of London Life (London, 1857), pp. 283-84.

28 “Death in the Household,” p. 344.

- 7 -

being so inebriated that they could not walk and at times had to be placed with “their staves into the interior of the hearse and drive[n] … home.”29

A “mute” was a professional mourner, hired to take part in the funeral services and, of course, to have a lugubrious expression. Charles Dickens, in Oliver Twist, notes that at Mr. Sowerberry’s “the wall, behind the counter was ornamented with a lively representation of two mutes in very stiff neckcloths, on duty at a large private door, with a hearse drawn by four black steeds, approaching in the distance.” Attracted by what he sees as the melancholy appearance of Oliver, Mr. Sowerberry suggests that he should be a “mute.” “’I don't mean,’” he suggests to his wife, that Oliver should be “a regular mute to attend grown-up people … but only for children's practice. It would be very new to have a mute in proportion, ... You may depend upon it, it would have a superb effect.”30 The reputation of those who acted as mutes could hardly have been lower. Jane Ellen Panton, the daughter of the painter W. P. Frith, tells of the sight of “red-nosed men” who

stood outside the door from early morning until the funeral was over, each bearing a mysterious bauble, something like a broom tied up in black silk squares at the head and finished at the middle of the stave with black silk bows. These worthies … were supposed to stand motionless, no matter what the weather.31

An American visitor, speaking of the mutes at a London funeral, described them as the “very lowest of the low; they are generally as drinking, gambling, and murderous a set of men, or devils, as ever abode within the walls of a jail.”32 Aside from the clothes that were so much a part of mourning, other tasks needed to be done. For these, there were a variety of appropriate appurtenances ranging from mourning envelopes and paper and black sealing wax to mourning jewelry. The selection of items was extensive. In a period when correspondence was far more formal than today, Parkins and Gotto of Oxford Street, manufacturers and purveyors of stationary, advertised “50 different kinds of mourning stationery.”33 Moreover, for those who wanted their mourning stationery to carry the appropriate monogram, there was always the service provided by firms such as Henry Rodrigues at 42, Piccadilly which offered:

Black bordered note paper and envelopes of every description, also ... paper every width of border. Memorial Cards and return Thanks of the newest patterns.

29 “Funeral Expenses,” p. 762.

30 Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist (London, 1900), pp. 45, 50.

31 Mrs J E Panton, Leaves from a Life (London, 1908), p. 146.

32 William O’Daniel, Ins and Outs of London (Philadelphia, 1859), p. 360.

33 Morning Chronicle (London, 15 July 1859), p. 8.

- 8 -

Notepaper and envelopes stamped in black relief, and illuminated in a superior manner.34

Not surprisingly, Cassell’s Household Guide made sure to point out that “mourning stationary … [and] every kind of such articles as may be required, may be obtained of the best quality and at the lowest prices from Messrs. Terry, Stoneman and Co. ... of Hatton Gardens.”35 Just as fashions in mourning costumes changed, so too did those in mourning stationery. John Dickinson and Co. announced to the world in 1890 that paper with the traditional black border had been superseded by a more “artistic” black corner triangle.36 It certainly appealed to some. “Muriel,” in the Newcastle Courant praised this innovation, noting that it was “far less lugubrious” than the traditional black-edged paper.”37 Moreover, with the fascination for all things Japanese in the latter half of the century, Chas. Goodall and Son were able to provide “Japanesque Mourning Stationery” which was “simple, elegant, and artistic, [and] of a distinctive symbolic character.”38 Then, too, there were the personal mementos of the deceased. In a period when death was likely to take people at a younger age, and the body remained in the home until the funeral, mementos provided a kind of therapy and a physical remembrance. It was a time before the widespread popularity of photography meant that one could go to one's photo album and see pictures from happier days. Rings, brooches, and lockets containing hair from the dead were often kept by the immediate family and sometimes even by particularly close friends. For those who could afford it, the one picture of the loved one might be a post-mortem photograph taken and kept as a memento. Convention rigidly governed mourning, but might differ from county to county. Clocks in the house were stopped at the time of death and mirrors were either draped or turned to the wall. Curtains were drawn.39 The length of time for mourning appropriate for a widow or widower, a child or a parent was clearly spelt out. Deep mourning, for example, for a widow might be two years, followed by a period of half-mourning. Within these times, codes of dress, especially for women, were quite detailed as were what was and was not an appropriate activity. Men, because they still had to carry on the business of the day, were less bound by convention, but even they had to adhere to the appropriate dress and behaviour expected from them for their place in the family. Such patterns were followed by those in the “better” classes. 34 “Monograms (Mourning Stationery),” The Times (London, 24 September 1868), p. 1.

35 Cassell’s, p. 315.

36 The Times (London, 25 July 1890), p. 1.

37 “The Household,” Newcastle Courant (Newcastle, 6 September 1890), p. 2.

38 The Times (London, 8 November 1890), p. 1.

39 For a list of superstitions in Europe and America, relating to death, see Fanny D. Bergen, et al. “Current Superstitions I. Omens of Death,” The Journal of American Folklore (USA, Jan.-Mar., 1889), pp. 12-22.

- 9 -

Death in the lower and labouring classes was less bound up with the rituals. This very lack of ritual was seen by the middle-classes as evidence for shallowness in feeling and a general lack of respectability. Visits to the sick and dying were also rigidly controlled. For example, if one wished to send a card indicating concern, and if a servant delivered that card, the corner should be turned down. The turned down corner might also indicate that the bearer did not wish to enter the house but was only dropping a card. It was not expected that one would call at the house of the deceased until a week after the funeral. 40 By the later years of the century, the pattern and habits of mourning had begun to change, although the full panoply of tradition was observed in the event of the death of the sovereign. On the passing of King George IV, in 1830, ladies were instructed by the Lord Chamberlain “to wear black bombazine, plain muslin or long lawn linen, crape hoods, chamois shoes and gloves, and crape fans.” The requirements on Victoria’s death, some seven decades later, were that women of the court were “to wear black dresses, trimmed with crape, and black shoes and gloves, black fans, feathers, and ornaments.” For men, on the death of King George, the instructions were to wear “black cloth, without buttons on the sleeves and pockets, plain muslin or long lawn cravats and weepers, chamois shoes and gloves, crape hatbands, and black swords and buckles.” Seven decades later, on the death of Queen Victoria, they were to wear black Court dress with black swords and buckles.” Deep mourning for Victoria was to continue for six months with half-mourning for the following six months. In this latter period, the women of the court were allowed a degree of freedom in accessorizing, while the men were required to continue dressing as they had in the first six months.41 However, if mourning for royalty remained much the same in the nineteenth century, for the sovereigns’ subjects there were changes. It may be, as Richard Davey suggested in 1889 that private mourning had been “greatly altered and modified, to suit an age of rapid transit and travel.” Men, he noted, no longer wore “full black for a fixed number of months after the decease of a near relation, and even content[ed] themselves with a black hat-band and dark-coloured garments.” The funeral ceremony too was becoming less elaborate, and it was much more common to send flowers to the grave than in earlier years.42 In addition, cremation was more widely accepted. Such simplification must have been a problem to the vast mourning industry which surely would have wanted to keep the whole process as complicated as possible. The mourning warehouses which had expanded from clothing to paraphernalia to funerals were, by the 1890s, advertising their knowledge of the appropriate behaviour

40 Cassell’s, p. 111.

41 The Times (London, 28 June 1830), p. 1; (London, 24 January 1901), p. 5.

42 Davey, A History of Mourning, p. 96.

- 10 -

for the bereaved. In a full column advertisement in The Times in 1894, Jay's Mourning Warehouse pointed out that

The etiquette of Mourning is continually changing in certain matters of detail, and a reliable guide to what may, and what may not, be worn under certain circumstances is almost necessary. That guide is to be found here--an authority on everything, from the length of a widow's veil to the texture of a ball dress.43

With a rapidly growing population which more than doubled in the first half of the nineteenth century, arrangements for the interment of the dead were totally inadequate. At least until the 1830s, most burials took place in parish churchyards where the standards of sanitation were often so low that the churchyards were a health hazard to church-goers and to those who had business in the burial fields. Black's New Guide to London and its Environs (1863), commented on a situation which at that date was still not fully resolved.

The barbarous practice of interring human bodies within the precincts of the Metropolis has not yet been wholly abandoned, though of late years it has been much abated; but not before several of the churchyards had become full to overflowing and the neighbourhood had been rendered notoriously unhealthy, “the plague spots of the population.” Vaults and catacombs underneath churches have been in many instances closed against the future deposit of coffins therein. The coffins previously there, if not removed by the relatives of the deceased, have been collected in one common vault which has been closed and built up, never afterwards to be opened on any pretence whatever.44

By the 1830s, it had become clear something had to be done, but what? A proposal had been floated, in the 1820s, by the barrister, George Frederick Carden, to create a commercial cemetery on the outskirts of the great metropolis. His inspiration was the cemetery of Père-Lachaise, in Paris, which he had visited in 1821. He could not help but be impressed by the garden atmosphere which surrounded the graves, especially when compared with the squalor of the graveyards in London. Enlisting influential figures in his campaign, a joint stock company was formed and in mid-1831 a tract of 55 acres was purchased at Kensal Green. Here, the first of the great cemeteries of London, the first of “the magnificent seven” as they came to be called 150 years later, in the 1980s, was laid out. G. K. Chesterton, in The Flying Inn, (1914) wrote: “that there is good news yet to hear and fine things to be seen, Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green.”45

Landscaped and with mausoleums and catacombs, buildings designed in the classical style, it became the final resting place of choice for many of the most prominent men and women of the age. The first burials took place there in early 1833, and within ten years six more large cemeteries had opened near London: West Norwood Cemetery

43 “Jay’s Mourning House,” The Times (London, 24 August 1894), p. 9.

44 Black’s New Guide to London and its Environs (Edinburgh, 1863), pp. 31-2.

45 G. K. Chesterton, The Flying Inn (London, 1914), p. 252.

- 11 -

(1837), Highgate Cemetery (1839), Abney Park Cemetery (1840), Nunhead Cemetery (1840), Brompton Cemetery (1840) and Tower Hamlets Cemetery (1841).

By the middle years of the 1850s, deaths in London exceeded 50,000 per year. The space required for such a large number of burials would have been about 48 acres. As William O’Daniel, an American visitor to London noted, “it is more difficult to find room for the dead than it is for the living.”46 Both Kensal Green and Highgate were becoming crowded, and there were problems with some of the other suburban cemeteries. Although the issue of sanitation had been largely ameliorated, that of space was to remain largely unresolved until cremation became more common. Although cremation was not illegal in England, and the first working crematorium was built in Woking, Surrey in 1879, it was not widely practiced in the nineteenth century. In 1902, Parliament passed the Cremation Act which formalized the use of the practice and by 1968 more than half of all the dead in Britain were being cremated. Today, that figure stands at around 70 percent.

There were, of course, other cemeteries in and around London, and an increasing number as the century moved on. However, the creation of the “Magnificent Seven” stood as a model movement for the cleansing of the unwholesome practices which had caused so much disease in the great Metropolis. Even so, those who made their livings from the death of others managed to adjust and continue their predatory and rapacious practices.

46 O’Daniel, Ins and Outs, p. 365.