Wigs and Gowns
A lasting tradition
Claire Muir
Victoria Law Foundation 8 pages 1st edition 2005
ISBN 978 1 876045 50 0
RRP FREE
Download
PDF or Printed copy available from Information Victoria, 505 Little
Collins Street, Melbourne, tel 1300 366 356
This brochure explains the origins of court dress in Victoria and contemporary
issues surrounding the wearing of legal regalia. The brochure was designed
to accompany the ‘Wigs and Gowns’ panel display that Victoria Law Foundation
exhibits during Law Week each year.
Cover image: The Hon. Justice Frank Vincent, Michael King and Clarinda
Molyneux QC at the opening of the legal year. Photo by David Johns,
reproduced with the permission of the Law Institute of Victoria.
The text of the brochure is provided below.
The Legal Gown
Wigs
Court Dress: Who Wears
What?
Gender and Court Dress
Contemporary Issues
References
The Legal Gown
Today’s legal dress derives from clothing made fashionable by the
wealthy and educated classes of a previous era. Originating from Roman
traditions, it was designed to distinguish members of the profession
from other members of society.
Robes were commonly worn by men in Europe until the mid-fourteenth
century. When long gowns ceased to be fashionable in general society,
legal practitioners continued to wear them.
Following the publication of a scholarly work in 1625, The Discourse
on Robes and Apparel, the Commission of Westminster passed a Royal
Decree regulating judicial dress. This document, known as the Judges’
Rules of 1635, aimed to codify the existing attire worn by the judiciary.
Judges were to wear black or dark violet gowns on normal occasions,
and red gowns for special ceremonial events and criminal cases. Barristers
were not subject to these formal regulations, but during the same period,
they began to wear only black robes.
Some suggest that the rules were introduced to curb overspending on
garments, while others contend that the more sombre attire became standard
as part of the mourning ritual for the death of an English monarch.
There are enduring theories that the passing of Queen Mary II (1694)
or Queen Anne (1714) caused the change, while historian J.H. Baker believes
that the death of King Charles II (1685) is a more likely cause.
The traditional English legal dress was not firmly established in
Australia until the mid-nineteenth century. The attire was not well
received by all legal practitioners, as many questioned the practicalities
of wearing heavy garb in such a hot climate. However, by the 1860s court
dress had been fully adopted in Australia ; South Australia was the
last colony to take up the wigs in the late 1850s.
Features of the Gown
THE MONEY BAG: The junior barrister’s gown carries a feature
known as the ‘money bag’. It is a thin strip of material trailing down
the front of the gown and the remainder of a ‘pocket’ on the back. Legend
has it that the gentlemanly barrister would not lower himself to ask
clients for money, but would turn his back and pull on the strap to
jingle the bag ‘reminding’ the client that payment was due. However,
English wigmakers Ede and Ravenscroft, creators and sellers of court
dress since the seventeenth century, argue that the ‘money bag’ is in
fact the remains of either an early monastic hood, or a traditional
hood worn during a period of mourning.
THE ROSETTE: In Victoria , the senior barrister’s gown incorporates
a square piece of black silk, decorated with one bow on each corner.
These bows carry several layers of ruffled silk pinned with a button
in the centre, and attached to the gown’s back by a silk ribbon. Popularly
thought to be a sign of Irish heritage, the ‘rosette’ was actually another
element of wig maintenance. The tails of the short wig were tied into
the ‘wig bag’ or ‘powder bag’ to protect the gown from the powder and
ointment used to care for the wig.
Wigs
Before the seventeenth century, legal administrators in Europe did
not wear a prescribed headdress. The Royal Decree of 1635 ordered judges
to maintain their recently acquired habit of wearing a simple white
lace cap, or coif, while barristers remained bare-headed. The wig was
introduced to England by the royal court of King Charles II during the
Restoration of 1660, adopting the fashion from the French court of King
Louis XIV. It is believed that French courtiers originally developed
the headdress in order to emulate the luxurious locks of their monarch.
The wigs of this period were grand and oversized, designed in a style
that later became known as the ‘full-bottomed wig’. At this stage, they
were known as ‘periwigs’ or ‘perriwigs’, derived from the French word,
perruque. The powdered wig now associated with the legal profession
did not appear in England until the early eighteenth century. When first
introduced, wigs were made in natural colours of black or blonde, but
gradually they began to appear in many different colours and styles.
They were originally made from a variety of materials: vegetable fibers;
goat, yak or horsehair; or human hair. Today, all styles of legal wigs
are made from horsehair.The Legal Gown Wigs
Features of the Wig
THE FONTANELLE: The small indentation in the centre of the
judge’s bench wig is called the ‘fontanelle’, and is designed to represent
the markings on the head of the infant Jesus Christ.
The fontanelle is thought to be derived from the traditions of medieval
monks.
Changing Wigs
Wigs of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries needed constant
maintenance. They were treated daily with a scented ointment called
pomatum, followed by a liberal application of powder. In 1822, Humphrey
Ravenscroft patented the ‘forensic wig’, a style featuring fixed curls,
which didn’t require frizzing, curling or pomatum. The forensic wig
remains the style worn by barristers today. Ravenscroft repeated his
success when he used the same method to develop a new style of the full-bottomed
wig in 1835. In the twenty-first century, judges don the full-bottomed
wig only on ceremonial occasions.
A simplified form of the forensic wig, known as the ‘bench’ or ‘tie’
wig, which has no rows of curls or buckles, is prescribed for general
court duties.
Court Dress: Who Wears What?
Judges
Since 1988, members of the High Court have worn gowns, but not wigs,
and the Federal Court adopted the same practice in 1997. Federal Court
judges wear black robes with a black trim for ‘first instance’ work,
and black robes with a red trim for appeal cases. In Victoria , Supreme
Court judges wear black robes and a bench wig.
The ceremonial gown is red, trimmed with white material, and fastened
around the waist with a wide, black belt. The traditional full-bottomed
wig is reserved for special occasions, such as the opening of the legal
year. In the County Court, judges wear black robes lined with purple.
Magistrates in the Magistrates’ Courts do not wear traditional legal
attire at all, although they must dress in an appropriately professional
manner.
Barristers
The design and cut of their gowns, the material of the gown, the style
of the wig, and other items of regalia distinguish junior barristers
and senior barristers (also known as Queen ’s Counsel and Senior Counsel).
JABOT: Barristers are required to wear a jabot, which in its
traditional form is two rectangles of stiff, white linen, worn around
the neck over a collarless shirt. The alternative is a white starched
collar held in place with studs. Over this collar, a white cotton band
or ‘bib’ is tied, held in place by a stud at the back of the collar.
There are variations in style for both bibs and jabots. All three ranks
of the legal profession wear the jabot, with judges often favouring
a style made with lace. In the County Court, judges individually choose
the type of jabot they prefer. County Court judges wear ceremonial robes
when attending the opening of the legal year and other formal occasions.
The ceremonial robes include a hood, lace jabot and cuffs.
GOWNS: Worn over the black bar jacket, there are several different
styles of gown. The junior barrister wears a wool or ‘stuff’ gown, whereas
the Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel robes are silk, hence the expression
‘taking silk’ when a junior barrister is appointed to the senior level.
Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsels are often referred to as ‘silks’
in reference to the material of their gown, while junior barristers
were previously known as ‘stuffsmen’.
Under legislation governing Victoria ’s legal profession, it is not
compulsory for a barrister to wear a wig and gown when appearing before
any court or tribunal dealing with summary criminal proceedings or civil
cases not involving a jury. However, each court has its own practice
as to when barristers are required to wear a wig and gown when appearing
before a judge.
Gender and Court Dress
When women first came to the English Bar in 1922, there was some debate
over whether they should be allowed to wear wigs. It was decided that
both sexes should wear the same headdress, provided their hair was completely
covered.
As it was not culturally acceptable for women to wear trousers in
the workplace until the late twentieth century, it was taken for granted
that they would wear skirts or dresses under the gown. A book produced
by the Victorian Bar in 1979, entitled Professional Conduct, Practice
and Etiquette: A Compilation of the Governing Rules and Structures,
drew its dress code from a directive from the Lord Chief Justice of
England :
The dress of barristers appearing in court should be unobtrusive and
compatible with the wearing of the robes. Suits and dresses should be
of dark colour. Dresses or blouses should be long sleeved and high to
the neck. Men should wear waistcoats. Shirts and blouses should be predominantly
white or of other unempathic appearance. Collars should be white and
shoes black.
No conspicuous jewellery or ornaments should be worn. Although the
guidelines did not explicitly state that women could not wear trousers,
it was nonetheless an unwritten rule within the legal community. Challenges
from women to the implications of the directive, have not always been
welcomed. Judges have refused to ‘see’ or ‘hear’ women whose dress did
not meet with their approval.
Joan Rosanove was the first Australian/Victorian woman to wear court
dress when she joined the Victorian Bar in 1923, and became the state’s
first female QC when she took silk in 1964.
Stocking Controversy
As recently as 1993, solicitor and family law specialist Sue MacGregor
was criticised for her choice of polka-dot stockings, above-the-knee
skirt, and a ponytail of bright red hair.
She had chosen clothes that were intended to put her clients at ease,
but the judge declared he was so ‘shocked’ that he threatened to leave
the court room in order to ‘recover’. Apparently her outfit had ‘prevented
him from thinking clearly’. The incident caused much public interest,
raised questions of discrimination and gender bias, and led to an inquiry
by the Australian Law
Reform Commission. Today’s legal dress derives from clothing made
fashionable by the wealthy and educated classes of a previous era. Originating
from Roman traditions, it was designed to distinguish members of the
profession from other members of society.
Contemporary Issues
Court dress came under particular scrutiny in Australia in the 1970s
when the Family Court was established. In an attempt to make this court
less formal and more ‘family friendly’, it was proposed that wigs should
not be worn, although the gowns would be retained. However, in 1987,
after a series of violent attacks directed against judicial members
of the Family Court, judge’s wigs were reinstated to preserve the legal
practitioners’ anonymity in the court.
Today, the practice of wearing wigs and gowns remains a matter of
significant social and political debate.
Some Arguments for Retaining Court Dress
• People associate wigs and gowns with the law and its administrators.
Like other uniforms, wigs and gowns serve to represent the law as an
entity rather than as a group of individuals.
• Court dress is an equaliser. Because everyone looks the same, there
can be no discrimination based on clothing.
• Court dress inspires respect for the law and its practitioners.
• Legal attire can provide the wearer with some anonymity.
Some Arguments for Abolishing Court Dress
• Wigs and gowns form part of an archaic historical tradition that
might indicate outdated attitudes.
• They are impractical in the Australian climate, as they are hot
and uncomfortable to wear.
• Court dress can appear alienating to members of the public.
An Ongoing Argument
Despite vocal opposition to court dress from some sections of society,
opinion polls from both the public and the legal profession continue
to support the retention of wigs and gowns. The most recent public opinion
survey conducted by the Law Institute of Victoria in 2003 reported that
54 percent (193) of a total 360 respondents agreed with maintaining
legal regalia.
References
Newspapers
The Age - Victoria . 2003.
Australian Financial Review. 2003
The Canberra Times. 1997
The Herald – London . 2003
The Herald Sun. 2003
The Hobart Mercury. 1999
Daily Telegraph - NSW. 1999
Gold Coast Bulletin. 2003
The Guardian. 2003.
The West Australian . 1999
Books and Articles
Brown, Melinda. "Keeping Your (Horse) Hair On." Law Institute
Journal 73, no. 2 (1999): 12-13.
Cannon, John, ed. The Oxford Companion to British
History. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1997.
Court Dress . A Consultation Paper issued on behalf of
the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. London , 1992.
Editors, The. "On Robes, Rights, Retirements, and Republics."
Victorian Bar News 101, no. Winter (1997): 5-7.
Gowans , Sir Gregory. The Victorian Bar Professional Conduct, Practice
and Etiquette: A Compilation of the Governing Structures and Rules.
Sydney , Melbourne , Brisbane , Perth : The Law Book Company Ltd, 1979.
Hargreaves-Mawdsley , W.N. A History of Legal Dress in
Europe : Until the End of the Eighteenth Century. Oxford
: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Laster, Kathy. Law as Culture. 2nd ed. Sydney : Federation
Press, 2001.
Laver, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. 4th ed.
London : Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2002.
Martin, Wayne . "Forensic Fashions." Law Society Bulletin
8, no. 7 (1986): 216-18.
McQueen, Rob. "Of Wigs and Gowns: A Short History of Legal and
Judicial Dress in Australia ." Law in Context (Special
Issue) 16, no. 1 (1999): 31-58.
Opas , Phillip. "The Law Has Long Ears." Law Institute
Journal (2002): 78-80.
Rush, John. "Irish Australian Legal Links." Victorian
Bar News 127 (2003): 62-65.
Society, The Public Issues Committee of the Auckland District. "Lawyers'
Wigs and Gowns." New Zealand Law Journal 18 (1979):
386-90.
Weir, Alison. Britain 's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy
. 3rd ed. London : Pimlico, 2002.
Wilken, David. "Court Dress." Victorian Bar News 114
(2000): 32.
Woodcock, Thomas. Legal Habits: A Brief Sartorial History
of Wig, Robe and Gown. London : Good Books Publications Ltd, 2003.
Internet Sources
Blashki Legal Regalia, available at: http://www.blashki.com.au/store/products.pl
Accessed: 7/11/2004
Ede and Ravenscroft Legal Wear. Available from:
http://www.edeandravenscroft.co.uk/legal/Home.pasp
Accessed: 7/11/2004 .
Law Institute of Victoria . Press Release, “To Wig or Not to Wig?”
05 November 2003 . Available from:
http://www.liv.asn.au/news/media/20031105_wnwpcv.html
Accessed: 15/010/2004
Legal Information Access Centre (LIAC) - Hot Topics. Available from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/liac/hot%5ftopic/hottopic/2002/3/2.html?query=wigs+and+gowns
Accessed: 19/10/2004
Legal Practice Act 1996 – Section 70 – Compulsory Robing Abolished.
Victorian Consolidated Legislation, available from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/s70.html
Accessed: 19/10/2004
Ludlows - Legal wear. Available from:
http://www.ludlows.com.au
Accessed: 5/11/2004
Victorian Bar Association. Available from: http://www.vicbar.com.au
Accessed: 19/10/2004 .
Additional Sources:
A series of oral history interviews with a wide range of legal practitioners
|
