Costume

ISSN: 0590-8876 (Print) 1749-6306 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ycos20

History of the Gowns Worn at the English Bar

J. H. Baker

To cite this article: J. H. Baker (1975) History of the Gowns Worn at the English Bar, Costume,
9:1, 15-21, DOI: 10.1179/cos.1975.9.1.15

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/cos.1975.9.1.15

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ycos20

Download by: [University of Exeter] Date: 30 May 2016, At: 14:19

 HISTORY OF THE GOWNS
WORN AT THE ENGLISH BAR
Legal folklore has always fascinated
the public and the profession, and the
hundred or so books which have been
written about the Inns of Court and
their customs include more than a few
accounts of legal dress. None of the
latter, however, are wholly accurate,
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
being founded for the most part on
gossip and speculation rather than
evidence. In no respect is the inade-
quacy of the recorded traditions of the
law greater than in the story of the
gown worn by junior barristers. 1 The
garment is not at first sight remarkable:
a full gown of black stuff, pleated at the
yoke like an academic gown, and with
wide bell-shaped sleeves caught up over
the elbow with three buttoned tapes.
Only the sharp observer, or he who has
spen t some time in the courts, would
notice the curious appendage sus-
pended over the back of the left
shoulder by a long strip of stuff which
hangs in front (figure on page 20). The
broader piece at the back has been
likened to a fiddle sliced in half2 or a
cloven tongue,3 though the shape is not
easy to describe in words. An old
tradition, dating at least from the end of
the eighteenth century and still current
at the Bar,4 is that it is a "wallet" or
"pouch" into which the grateful client
could slip the honorarium, unseen and
without embarrassment. An ingenious
exponent of this theory represented it
as "a craftily constructed pouch with a
wide funnel and a narrow orifice. The
funnel was wide enough to admit a
suitor's hand, and the orifice narrow
enough to retain the suitor's guineas. "s
Less imaginative writers have seen a
c onne ction with the medieval
chaperon, or the chausse of French
advocates, and therefore suppose a
continuous evolution from the forensic
costume of the middle ages.6 A
magazine article of 1893 referred
humorously to these "two great
theories" concerning the little triangle
of stuff, and lamented that "nobody
has arisen to decide on which side the
truth lies. "7 The object of the present
paper is to show that neither theory was
correct.
by J. H. Baker
The difficulty with the wallet theory
.~ evident"' to anyone who attempts to
perform the feat of depositing a coin
inside the "orifice". It is not impossible,
bu tit certainly cannot be done easily or
delicately, and if this were really its
purpose it could have been designed in
a dozen better ways.8 The chaperon
theory, though nearer the mark, cannot
be reconciled with pictorial evidence
which suggests that, not only medieval,
but even Tudor and Stuart advocates
did not wear hoods un til they were
elevated to the degree of serjeant-at-
law.9 A judge of Henry VIII's time
explicitly stated, on the occasion of a
William QAofton, of Gray's Inn
(d. 1480). Brass at Trottescliffe, Kent.
The lnedieval roba would probably
have been parti-coloured.
15
call of serjeants, that the hood
distinguished them "from the residue
which be studens of the lawe". 10 The
members of the Inns of Court were all,
in that sense, undergraduates. None of
the internal dress regulations made by
the Inns of Court men tion any hood.
Neither of the two orthodox theories,
therefore, is supportable. They have
stood only for want of a third. 11As will
be shown, there is a third explanation
for the use of what is, without question,
a diminutive hood. But the present
gown, with its little hood, is of much
later origin than is generally supposed
and was assumed for different reasons
than might be guessed. In order to
establish its relative novelty, the earlier
costume of the Bar will be examined
first.
Dress of the Bar before 1600
Although the medieval legal pro-
fession was distinguishable by the "long
robe", there are no known regulations
or customs about the pattern of dress
worn by those below the degree of
serjeant. Brasses of lawyers show a
simple long tunic or roba, 12 and the
Inner Temple miniatures depicting the
four superior courts in the fifteenth
century show that the roba was
parti-coloured, usually with plain cloth
on one side and ray cloth of another
colour on the other side. 13 Serjeants
also wore parti-coloured robes, but with
the hood in addition. There was no
prescribed colour or form, and, within
the limits of legal fashion, the costume
was private dress.
Abou t the time of Henry VII the
closed roba gave way to the open gown,
which in the course of the sixteenth
cen tury came to be usually of a dark or
"sad" colour. This was a change of
fashion which occurred generally, and
in the Universities was to separate the
ordinary black (Tudor) gown from the
medieval scarlet festal gown of the
doctor. The long gown was a sober form
of dress for the middle classes,
especially for professional or elderly
men, and not yet a prescribed uniform
of set pattern. A manuscript account of
the Middle Temple in Henry VIII's reign
 until cloaks appeared in fashionable.
wear, no alternative was probably
contemplated. The first known regula-
tion against cloaks was made in 1557,
and it was succeeded by a welter of
prohibitions on cloaks, boots, hats, and
other "gallant" fripperies which offend-
ed the gravity of the benchers.17
Between 1580 and 1600 all four Inns
had ordered gowns to be worn, not only
in Hall and Chapel, but even when
walking in the streets. 18
Deprived of their pounced doublets,
great Dutch breeches, and Spanish
cloaks, the fashionable young gentle-
men took to decorating their gowns
with lace and velvet. In 1557 the use of
"wings" on the sleeves was for-
bidden,19 and in 1584 the Middle
Temple forbade the use of velvet except
by benchers. 20 Mr. Secondary Kempe,
of the Court of King's Bench, recalledin
1602 that
in tymes past the counsellors wore
gowns faced with satten, and some
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
, sleeves, and sometimes to the front and
. . bottom edge. The sleeves might also
have loops and tufts, especially on the
upper arm. An examination of numer-
ous monuments and other illustrations
has convinced the writer that there were
no precise regulations as to the use. of
lace and tufts before about Charles I's
time. Only when gowns went out of
general use did they become a kind of
uniform, and it took a generation or so
for distinctions of rank to be settled.
Since it would lead too far away from
the theme of this paper, no attempt will
be made to describe the many examples
of decorated gowns found in the time of
Elizabeth I and James I. Uniformity

with yell owe cotten, and the

William Mordaunt, bencher of the
Middle Temple (d.i5i8). Brass at
Hempstead, Essex. This is an early
form of gown, which seems still not to
be wholly open in front.
says that the members had "no order
for their apparell; but every man may go
as him listeth, so that his apparell
pretend no lightness or wantonness in
the wearer." 14 Apart from the Order of
the Coif, which had by this time
developed an almost monkish nabit
(whereof judicial costume is the only
surviving species), the only requirement
so far was sobriety. 15 Effigies of Inns of
Court men from the period 1500 to
1520 show various forms of open gown,
usually edged with fur, but without
distinctive embellishments or hoods. 16
It is not clear exactly when the wearing
of gowns became compulsory, though
benchers with jennet futre; now they
are come to that pride and
fantasticknes that everyone must
have a velvet face, and some soe
tricked with lace that Justice Wray in
his tyme spake to such an odd
counsellor in this manner: Quomodo
intrasti, domine, non habens vestem
nuptialem? Get you from the barre,
or I will put you from the barr for
your folish pride. 21
By this time there was probably a plain,
standard pattern of gown which was
generally recognized as duly modest. In
1577 there is a reference to "utter
barrister's gowns" as distinct species. 22
The full-length monumental effigies of
Robert Keilwey (+ 1580) and Edmund
Plowden (+ 1584), benchers of the
Inner and Middle Temple respec-
tively,23 each show a plain gown with
hanging or "glove" sleeves which were
much wider above the elbow-slit than
below. The only decoration seems to
have been an edging to the elbow-slit Thomas Palmer, utter-barrister of the
and to the bottom of the sleeve; perhaps Middle Temple (d.i62i). The velvet
these, and the facings, were of velvet. welts of the old Bar gown are clearly
Almv.>t certainly the garment would shown on this brass at Epping, Essex.
have been black or one of the dark (By courtesy of the Monumental Brass
colours approximating to black. Keil- Society ).
weyand Plowden, who had begun their
studies in Henry VIII's time, may have began in the second or third decade of
belonged to the last generation of the seven teen th century, when gowns
benchers to wear plain gowns in the old were becoming an artificial and slightly
manner. archaic costume for the learned
Laced and tufted gowns: professions, and especially for the
Readers and King's Counsel members of collegiate institutions
The lace tricking to which Kempe which continued to insist on their use.
drew attention in 1602 is commonly By 1637, when the Privy Council
shown on effigies of readers, barristers, ordered the counsellors appearing
and even students of the Inns of Court before them to wear "their gownes,
at that period - not omitting Kempe's according to theire places", 24 custom
own monument at Pentlow, Essex. The or tacit agreement had already pre-
lace, which was probably similar to the scribed a particular form of gown for
black "doctor's lace" used on academic utter-barristers and another for readers.
gowns, was usually applied to the The reader's gown had a velvet welt on

16
 the back 2S and was probably laced and
tufted. Judges, serjeants, and officers of
the courts had similar gowns for at least
some of their appearances.
In the Restoration period, the cloth
gown with velvet facings, lace, and
tufts, came to be appropriated exclu-
sively to the law officers of the Crown
and the rising order of King's Counsel.
In 1668, when Francis North was made
a King's Counsel at an early age, he took
to wearing such a gown and was at first
rebuked by one of the judges because he
was not a reader in his Inn. After some
unpleasant scenes, the benchers of the
Middle Temple were compelled to call
North to the bench of the Inn, and
North was permitted to use his tufted
gown.26 Soon after this the office of
reader decayed into a purely nominal
appointment; it had become an expen-
sive chore, and many barristers pre-
ferred to pay the fine for refusing it
when offered, so the duties were in time
abandoned. By 1770, as will be shown
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
later, benchers and readers who were
not King's Counsel would wear the
same gowns as utter-barristers.
The tufted gown is shown in ou tline
in Ogilby's engraving of the coronation
procession of Charles II (1662). But the
best illustration is perhaps the standing
effigy of Sir Clement Spelman, K.C. (+
1679), by C.G. Cibber, at Narborough,
Norfolk. There are six horizontal rows
of lace on the sleeve above the elbow,
each having three tufts; and there are
three rows of tufts, set closely in fours,
on the lower part of the sleeve. The
same costume is shown, but only from
above the elbow, in Lely's portrait of
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Attorney-General
1660-1670, as engraved by Robert
White; and also in White's engraving of
William Petyt (+ 1707), reader of the
Inner Temple, which he drew from life.
During the eighteenth century the
amoun t of lace and the num ber of tufts
increased, the tufts becoming more like
small flowers than the bunches of silk
strands used in the seventeenth century;
the gown itself came to be made from
flowered damask. The evolu tion may be
traced in the portraits of the following:
Sir James Montague, Attorney-General
1708-1710; Sir Dudley Ryder,
Attorney-General 1737-1754; Sir
Charles Yorke, Attorney-General
1765-1770.27
The tufted gown had probably
become a ceremonial costume by the
eighteenth century, being worn on
royal birthdays and at Drawing Rooms
in the royal presence. The same kind of
gown was worn by judges at Drawjng
Rooms, and it may be that at some stage
two garments became confused; for as
late as 1787 it is stated that the King's
Counsel wore tufted gowns faced with
velvet on birthdays. 28 There is a good
illustration of the judicial tufted gown
in the portrait of Sir William Garrow,
Bulstrode Whitelock, utter-barrister of
the Middle Temple, painted in 1634.
(By courtesy of the National Portrait
Gallery ).
Baron of the Exchequer 1817-1840,
who wears it with a gold waistcoat and
lace"bands. 29 The tufted gown worn by
Sir Jonathan Frederick Pollock, Chief
Baron of the Exchequer 1844-1870, is
on display in the Exhibition of Legal
Costume at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Apart from the train, it is of the same
form as that worn by King's Counsel. As
late as 1921, it is stated in Dress Worn at
Court that King's Counsel and judges
wore tufted damask gowns at Drawing
Rooms; but in the 1929 edition the
costume is somewhat remarkably con-
fined to Attorneys-General who happen
to be Cabinet Ministers. 30 No doubt
the number of invitations to the Palace
was insufficien t to warrant the great
expense which these elaborate gowns
must have required. The tufted gown is
now ex tinct.
When the tufted gown ceased to be
worn in court, King's Counsel took to
the plain gown with the flap-collar and
long hanging sleeves, which their
successors still wear. This gown, made
of silk and with no decoration, was also
the informal garb of the judges and
serjeants-at-law. It is clearly depicted on
the brass of Robert Shiers (+ 1668),
reader of the Inner Temple, at
Bookham, Surrey. Shiers, like Petyt,
presumably wore the dress later
appropriated to King's Counsel because
he was a reader; they were the last
readers to do so. In the painting in the
National Portrait Gallery which shows
the Court of Chancery as it appeared in
about 1720, the serjeants and King's
Counsel wear silk gowns of the modern
pattern. It was this costume which gave
the latter the familiar name "silks",
though ironically many Queen's
Counsel now wear a stuff gown of the
same shape (technically a mourning
gown) for ordinary wear in court. 31
17
The "Noble Robe": 1600-1685
At the same time as the tufted gown
with the velvet welt came to be the
recognized reader's gown, there appear-
ed a recognized form of gown for the
utter Bar. It represented a worthy
compromise between the almost Puri-
tanical simplicity of the mid-Tudor
garmen t and the extravagances of the
Inns of Court gallant. Barristers were to
be dressed as scholars, but also as
gentlemen. The gown was similar to
that of the Cambridge Master of Arts,
save that the sleeve was cut square at the
bottom. It was edged at the front and
bottom with velvet. On the upper sleeve
was a vertical slit, running from the
centre of the arm-slit to the point of the
elbow, but sewn or hooked close; this
slit, and also the horizontal arm-slit,
were edged all round with velvet about
one inch wide. Sir Henry Chauncy,
himself called to the Bar in 1656,
remembered it as "a Noble Robe, fac'd
down before, guarded with two welts of
Velvet on the Sleeves ex tended from
the Shoulder to the Elbow, and another
on the border of it, like the Gards,
which the Romans used to distinguish
the different Degrees of Men among
them." 32 This was clearly a distinct
professional uniform, of which the two
vertical strips of velvet were the badges
of rank.
The earliest illustration of this form
of gown seems to be the effigy of
George Littleton (+ 1600) at Broms-
grove, Worcestershire. Littleton was
called to the Bar by the Inner Temple in
1583, and remained an utter-barrister
until his death. His gown has the two
weIts on the upper part of the sleeve,
and edgings to the bottom of the sleeve
William Petyt, bencher of the Inner'
Temple (d.1707). Engraving ad vivum
by Robert White, showing the tufted
reader's gown which came to be used
by King's Counsel.

Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
Robert Shiers, bencher of the Inner
Temple (d.1668). Brass at Bookham,
Surrey. It is not certain that this is
entirely accurate. If it represents the
Bar gown, the welts have been
omitted; if it represents the gown later
used only by King's Counsel, the
sleeves should not be puffed and
gathered at the shoulder.
and to both the hand-slit and the
arm-slit. It may be compared with the
brass of Robert Trencreeke (+ 1594),
another "counselor at lawe", at St.
Erme, Cornwall; here the vertical slit
extends only a few inches above the
elbow, where the edging turns at a
point. One cannot draw a generalisation
from two examples, but it seems fair to
say that the development of the notch
into the distinctive long "welts" of
velvet probably occurred at the end of
Elizabeth I's reign.. Another early
example, which confirms this assump-
tion, is the portrait of William Burton
on a panel dated 1604 in the possession
of the Society of Antiquaries. The sitter
is described as socius Interioris Templi
et Apprenticius legum Anglie, and so
there can be no doubt that it is in the
dress appropriate to that rank that he
chose to be painted. The artist has
indicated the velvet edging and double
weIt clearly. 33 Another Jacobean
example is provided by the brass at
Epping, Essex, of Thomas Palmer (+
1621), barrister of the Middle Temple.
The velvet trimmings in his case are
prominently indicated by the engraver
having cu t away the surface of the brass.
A three-dimensional representation of
the same gown is provided by the effigy
at Petersham, Surrey, of George Cole (+
1624), barrister of the Middle Temple.
There are three particularly fine
illustrations of the old Bar gown from
Charles I's time. The portrait of
Bulstrode Whitelock in the National
Portrait Gallery (dated 1634) shows the
velvet welts picked out with delicate
piping, and where they touch the elbow
there is a short vertical slit. At the time
of this portrait, Whitelock was an
utter-barrister of the Middle Temple. At
Uffington, Berkshire, there is a full-
length recumbent effigy of John
Saunders (+ 1638), another utter-
barrister of the Middle Temple. Again,
the bands of velvet have been repre-
sented with care. Elias Ashmole
confirms that the dress is a Bar gown. 34
The third example is the fine full-length
painting of Robert Ashley (dated 1641)
in the Middle Temple Library. No
doubt search in country churches
would produce more examples; but
these seven, fortuitously all Templars,
are sufficient to corroborate Chauncy's
statement.
This, then, is the true dress of the
English Bar. Yet it bears no relation to
the gown now worn, and if a barrister
wore such a gown today there would
doubtless be a protest from the Bench.
This brings us to the point of the story.
The "ignominious Habit"
introduced in 1685
The Bar gown now in use is, in fact, a
mourning gown. It is true that no orders
for the Bar to assume court mourning
have survived from this period,35 and
that there is no written record of the
customary form of mourning for the
Bar. There is, however, clear evidence
that the present gown was adopted in
mourning for Charles II in 1685 and
retained ever since.
Sir Henry Chauncy, after the passage
cited above, and after remarking that
the old robe had survived the Rebellion
- "when others laid aside their proper
Habit, through fear of the Souldiery, or
to please the faction of that Age" -
turned to lament:
it seems very ominous that these
learned Men should now decline this
Noble Robe and wear a scandalous
Livery which resemble those that
Bearers usually wear at Funerals, as
though the Law lay a dying:
However it is greatly hoped, That
that worthy Patron of the Law, Sir
John Holt, the present Lord Chief
Justice, will thoroughly reform this
ill practice, and that none of the
18
John Saunders, utter-barris'ter of the
Middle Temple (d.1638). Effigy at
Uffington, Berkshire, showing the
welts on the sleeve.
Reverend Sages of the Law will
suffer those Gentlemen to share in
the profit and advantage of that
Profession which they scandalize by
devesting it of that Ancient Robe,
and introducing an ignominious
Habit in the room of it. 36
The passage must have been written
after April 1689, when Holt became
Chief Justice; Chauncy was by then a
serjeant, but he had been a barrister
since 1656 and his word is therefore
reliable. Sir J oh,n Holt evidently shared
the serjeant's feelings, for it is recorded
that on 29 October 1697 (being the first
day of the Michaelmas term) he
"ordered all barristers to appear next
term in their proper gowns and not in
mourning ones, as they have done since
the death of King Charles." 37 The
diarist who wrote this note observed
that the next term the order was
observed and "the barristers appeared
at the king's bench in such gowns as
they wore before the death of King
Charles the 2nd." 38 This is corrobor-
ated by James Wright, a barrister and
law reporter: "the Lord Chief Justice
Holt caused most of those who
practised before him at the King's
Bench Bar to resume the wearing of the
old fashion'd Bar-Gowns ... which sort
of Gowns had been utterly disused for
many years past." 39 The order did not
stand for long; its main interest now is
the proof it affords of the novelty of the
newer type of gown. It is clear from
Luttrell, and implicit in Wright, that the
change took place on the King's death
in 1685, and not on Queen Mary's death
in 1694, as one garbled tradi don had
it.4o It is not difficult to guess why the
mourning gown was preferred. The old
gown, according to Luttrell, cost abou t
 £15 in 1697. The new type cost only
25s. in 1718,41 and had not reached
£15 when the writer was called to the
Bar in 1966. Moreover, the gown of
cloth or grogram must have been hot in
summer; and since the barrister, unlike
the judge or serjeant, could not
abandon his coats because the gown was
open in front, the lighter gown of stuff
or bombazine must have been more
comfortable.
Neither Chauncy nor Luttrell nor
Wright attempted to describe the new
gown, but there can be no doubt as to
the pattern. The full gown with
diminu tive black hood over the left
shoulder was in common use by
mourners and was not a specifically
legal costume.42 The hood was origin-
ally worn over the head, though well
before 1600 the practice had emerged
of hanging it over the left shoulder by
the liripipe; in De Bry's engraving of the
funeral procession of Sir Philip Sydney
in 1587 the mourners wear their hoods
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
in both ways.43 Why the left shoulder
was insisted upon is obscure, but the
barrister's hood is certainly always
worn at the left side to this day; whereas
the judges and serjeants wore their
scarlet hoods cast over the right
shoulder,44 and this practice has also
con tinued to the presen t day.
,Unfortunately, no seventeenth-
. century illustrations of the barristers'
mourning gown have yet been dis-
covered. Two apparent examples from
that century are anachronisms. Vertue's
engraving of Richard Graves (+ 1669), a
Sir Charles Yorke, Attorney-General
1765-1770. This portrait shows the
final form of the laced gown worn by
law officers and King's Counsel. The
subject has a three-cornered hat
tucked under his left arm. Exhibited at
the National Portrait Exhibition,
1867, by Lord Hardwicke.
some renown, probably among them -
are, course, shown from the back. The
serjeants and King's Counsel have
flap-collars, while the juniors have
pleated yokes and triangular appen-
dages on their left shoulders.
The impression given by the earlier
illustrations is that the mourning hood
as worn by barristers was originally
larger than it now is, yet smaller than
full size. The scarlet cloth casting-hood
worn by judges and serjean ts was of
exactly the same pattern, but it
remained of full size so that it could be
worn over both shoulders. Pictures do
not reveal the exact form of barrister's
hood, because it hung limp, but the
writer has seen mid-Victorian gowns on
which the hood is more or less of the
present shape. The figure shows the
shape of a hood made by Messrs. Ede
and Ravenscroft in about 1900. It is sad
to relate that in more recent times the
shape of the appendage has been
distorted, no' doubt because no one
knew what it was supposed to be, and is
no longer immediately recognizable as a
hood.
The gown itself is so simple that it
has permitted of little alteration, and in
fact the only obvious changes have been
William Thursby, bencher of the
Middle Temple (d.1701). Effigy at
Abington, Northam[Jtonshire, showing
the mourning gown. (By courtesy of
the National Monuments Record).
bencher of Lincoln's Inn, shows the
new pattern well; but the work was
done in about 1720, and, although the
long natural hair and moustache suggest
an authen tic portrait, Vertue probably
supplied the costume details. At
Ruabon, Denbighshire, is a full-length
standing effigy of Henry Wynne (+
1671), a bencher of the Inner Temple.
This also shows the mourning gown
with full bell-shaped sleeves and an
appendage approximately one foot long
(but not distinctly shaped) behind the
left shoulder. The effigy was execu ted
in about 1720. Neither of the deceased
would in fact have worn the newer
pattern of gown.
The earliest example the writer has
seen is the effigy of William Thorsby (+
1701), bencher of the Middle Temple,
at Abington, Northamptonshire. The
form of the sleeves is well represented,
bu t the artist seems to have missed the
hood. The fine recumbent effigy of
Thomas Vernon (+ 1721), another
bencher of the Middle Temple, at
Hanbury, Worcestershire, also omits the
hood.4s The hoods are, however, very Henry Wynne, bencher of the Inner
distinctly shown in the above- Temple (d.16 70). Anachronistic effigy
mentioned painting of the Court of at Ruabon, Denbighshire, showing the
Chancery, in about the time of George gown introduced in 1685. Executed in
I. The advoca tes in the well of the court about 1720. The hood on the left
- Vernon, as a Chancery barrister of shoulder is high-lighted by the flash.
19
 in the manner of catching up the sleeves
over the elbow. On Thursby's effigy
there are two tapes, close together, with
buttons. On Vernon's there are two
cords, an·inch or two distant from each
other, with buttons. The Wynne effigy
has a cord which forks into two, and
two buttons. Since Victorian times, if
not before, there have been three tapes
and buttons. The sleeves of the
serjean ts' scarlet and violet robes
underwent the same evolution; until
abou t the time of George II they were
simply folded back, without buttons,
then they were caught up by one or two
cords with buttons, and finally (before
the I820s) with three tapes and
bu Hons. There is, of course, no
particular significance in these tapes
and buttons, which were introduced
simply for convenience.
Although the judges and the Bar
Council have issued numerous edicts on
the use of wigs and gowns, and on wha t
is to be worn with them, and have very
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
recently brought women under the
same rules as men,46 they have not to
this day laid down what form the gown
should take. The "Noble Robe" of
cloth and velvet is perhaps still the
proper dress of the junior Bar, though
usage has certainly overridden pro-
priety and the Bar has acquired a
prescriptive right to wear stuff. Few
barristers, however, are conscious of the
fact that when they don the Bar gown
they are mourning a king who died
nearly three centuries ago.
Richard Graves, bencher of Lincoln's
Inn (d.1669). Anachronistic engraving
by George Vertue, circa 1720, showing
the mourning gown with a substantial
hood on the left shoulder.
Greysyn" (+ 1483), Trottescliffe,
Kent.
13. Inner Temple, MS Misc. 188. These
have often been reproduced in books.
14. W. Dugdale, Origines Juridiciales
(1680 ed.), p.197. The change to
sombre colours in the first part of the
16th century is evident from the wills
of two readers of the Middle Temple.
Robert Pynkney (+ 1508) bequeathed
a gown of murrey lined with tawney
damask and another of crimson with
fur, whereas Thomas Jubbe (+ 1533)
left gowns of black and russet with
fur: J .B. Williamson, Middle Temple
Bench Book (2nd ed., 1937), p.53,
citing P.C.C.1 Bennett and 7 Hogen.
Barrister's mourning hood, from a 15. Thus it was ordered by Lincoln's Inn
in 1531 that no fellow of the House
gown made in about 1900 in the should wear "eny cut or ponsyd
writer's possession. The material is (pounced) hosyn or bryches or ponsyd
folded along the line ab, and is sewn up doblett": Black Books of Lincoln's
from c to b. The line ac is open. To be Inn (hereafter B.B.), i, 230; Dugdale,
used as a hood, the curved part should op.cit., p.344. The Inner Temple in
1546 proscribed "cutt or disguysed
also be open. The hood is suspended apparell": Calendar of Inner Temple
from b. Dimensions: ab is 7 inches. Records (hereafter Cal.I.T.R.), i, 142.
In 1557 it was agreed by all the Inns
that no members, except knights and
FOOTNOTES benchers, should "weare in ther
dubletes or hose any light colours
1. The reader who is not familiar with the
history of the legal profession and its excepte scarlet or crymson, or weare
ranks and degrees may have slight any upher velvet cappe or any skarfe
or wynges on ther gownes sieves ... ":
difficulty with the terminology in this
paper. The writer has outlined the B.B., i, 320. Two years later it was
story in his Introduction to English decreed that no fur or silk should be
Legal History (1971), pp.65-77. worn except as permitted by the 24
2. J. Derriman, Pageantry of the Law Hen.8, c.13: ibid., 328. But the 1532
(1955), p.34; W.N. Hargreaves- statute exempted barristers and stu-
Mawdsley, History of Legal Dress in dents of the Inns of Court and
Europe (1963), p.90. The account of Chancery.
English legal costume in the latter is 16. (1) William Eyre, "legis peritus" (+
full of inaccuracies and incon- 1507), Great Cressingham, Norfolk.
sistencies. (2) John Muscote, of the Middle
3. M.T. Riley, in Notes and Queries (1st Temple (+ 1512), Earl's Barton,
Series), ix, 323 (1854). Northamptonshire. (3) Robert South-
4. An early version of this, though not well, of the Middle Temple (+ 1514),
yet linked with fees, may be found in Barham, Suffolk. (4) William Mor-
Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. LXV daunt, of the Middle Temple (+ 1518),
(1795), part 2, at p.562: "the tippet Hempstead, Essex. (5) Thomas
behind a barrister's gown was a wallet Babington, of the Inner Temple (+
to carry his breviates (briefs) in." See 1519), alabaster effigy at Ashover,
also J .S. Udal, in Notes and Queries Derbyshire. (1) to (4) are brasses.
(7th Series), iv, 78 (1887). The writer 17. B.B., i, 320: "that none of the
has often heard it repeated orally, companye other then knightes whiles
once from the Bench: Rondel v. they be in comons shall weare any
Worsley (1966), per Danckwerts L.J. Spanyshe cloke swoorde and buckler
(not reported in print). or raper ... "; same, Cal.I.T.R., i, 192;
5. Law Times, 9 December 1882, Vol. same, Middle Temple Records, i, 110;
LXXIV, p.110, from an anonymous B.B., i, 328 (1559, swords and
article in the PallMall Gazette. bucklers); ibid.,ii, 8 (1588, long hair
6. E. MacCulloch, in Notes and Queries and great ruffs); Cal.I.T.R., i, 396
(1st Series), x, 213 (1854) and (7th (1594, hats and cloaks); Dugdale,
Series), iv, 155 (1887); G.J. French, op.cit., pp.281 (Gray's Inn, 1574,
ibid. (1 st Series), x, 38 (1854); E.H.B., white doublets), 168 (Middle Temple,
ibid., xi, 114 (1855); R.J. Blackham, 1584, great ruffs, white doublets or
The Story of the Temple (n.d.), p.183; hose, cloaks, hats, long hair), 244
Hargreaves-Mawdsley, loc.cit. in note (Lincoln's Inn, 1596, cloaks, boots,
2. Derriman, loc.cit. in note 2, tries to spurs, long hair), 281 (Gray's Inn,
reconcile the two theories. 1600, hats, boots, spurs). These
7. Law Journal, 9 September 1893, Vol. continued in the seventeenth century,
XXVIII, p.605, from an anonymous and the writer remembers seeing one
article in The Globe. This writer of the old orders of the Inner Temple
confidently gave the appendage a being republished in about 1967: as
technical name: the "lapel". much to stop lady members wearing
8. So says Blackham, loc.cit. in note 6. boots as to encourage haircuts.
9. This is admitted by Hargreaves- 18. Calendar of Middle Temple Records, i,
Mawdsley, op.cit., pp.88-89. 269, no. 4 (1584); B.B. ii, 8 (1588);
10. Brit. Lib., MS Harl. 361, at f.85v. Pension Book of Gray's Inn, i, 148
11. The nearest previous attempt at (1600); Cal. I.T.R. i, 438-439 (1600).
finding it is J .B. Williamson, History of By a Lincoln's Inn order of 1610,
the Temple, London (1925 ed.), pp. utter-barristers walking in the Inn
656-658. without gowns, in term or vacation,
12. (1) Robert Skerne "in lege peritus" (+ were to be put out of commons: B.B.
1437), Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey. ii, 132. And in 1635 "yf from
(2) John Edward "famosus apprenti- henceforth any gent. of this Societie
cius in lege peritus" (+ 1461), shall in meale times come into the Hall
Rodmarton, Gloucestershire. (3) with any other upper garment than a
William Crofton "bacallarius Juris gowne, hee shalbee ipso facto sus-
Civilis et legis peritus ac Collega de pended from being a member of this
20
 Societie'" ibid., p.325.
19. B.B. i, 320; Cal. I.T.R. i, 192-193;
Cal.M.T.R. i, 110; Dugdale, op.cit.,
p.191.
20. Dugdale, op.cit., p.191.
21. Diary of John Manningham of the
Middle Temple (Camden Society,
1858), p.45. Wray had been Chief
Justice of the King's Bench from 1574
to 1592.
22. Brit. Lib., MS Add. 35329, f.26,
description of ceremonies on 19
November 1577 at a serjeants' call,
where it is said that the officers of the
feast wore parti-coloured gowns
"faced with martens and made of the
fashon of utter barresters' gownes,
with round capes."
23. Keilwey's is at Exton, in the old
county of Rutland. Plowden's is on
the north side of Temple Church.
24. B.B. ii, 343; Dugdale, op.cit., p.321.
25. Judges' Rules of 1627, in Dugdale,
op.cit., p.319: "That no Reader in
Court shall practise at the Barr at
Westminster, but with his Readers
Gown, with the Velvet welt on the
back: and that none but Readers in
Court shall at all wear or use any such
Gowns." Serjeant Bridgman, des-
cribing the serjeants' call of 1623, says
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 14:19 30 May 2016
the graduands first appeared in
Chancery in their "readers' gownes
and round capps": Durham University
Library, Mickleton-Spearman MS
17/7, at p.216.
26. Edward Ward's Reports, Lincoln's
Inn, MS Misc.499, f.423: " ... Et
Twisden (Judge) prist excepcion al
North pur wearing un tufted gowne et
dit que il ne doiet weare tiel gowne,
mes apres fuit agree que il (et touts
auters de counsell ove Ie roy, coment
ne sont lecteurs) poient weare tufted
gownes." In the same year, John
Vaughan of the Inner Temple appear-
ed in Chancery to take his serjeant's
oath "en un tufted gowne (esteant
forsque un bencher et nemi lecteur del
Inner Temple)": ibid., f.434. This was
probably a worse offence than
North's, but since Vaughan became a
Chief Justice the same day no-one was
likely to rebuke him.
27. (1) Sir James Montague: present
whereabouts unknown. Photograph in
the Witt Collection, Courtauld In-
stitute of Art. (2) Sir Dudley Ryder:
Lincoln's Inn. Portrait by James
Cranke, presented in 1847 by the Earl
of Harrowby. (3) Sir Charles Yorke:
Earl of Hardwicke in 1867. Exhibited,
National Portrait Exhibition 1867, no.
488.
28. J.S. Hawkins (ed.),Ignoramus (1787),
p.57n. Hawkins mistakenly thought
that this had once been the ordinary
Bar gown.
29. Painting by G.H. Harlow in the
possession of Lincoln's Inn.
30. Dress Worn at Court (1875 ed.), p.10;
(1903 ed), p.52; (1908 ed.), p.61;
(191200.), p.68; (1921 ed.), p.68. The
restriction occurs in: (1929 00.),
p.105; (1937 ed.), p.106. J. Derriman,
Pageantry of the Law (1955), p.67,
assumed that the "Attorney-General
being a Cabinet Minister" rule per-
sisted after the War.
31. This use of the mourning gown is
acknowledged in the Annual State-
ment of the Bar Council 1925, p.28.
32. The Historical Antiquities of Hert-
fordshire (1700), p.526.
33. A later portrait, dated 1615, was
engraved by Delaram in 1622 as the
frontispiece for Burton's Description
of Leicestershire, and in this the welts
became three narrow stripes. It is
evident from a sketch that this was a
mistake resulting from the manner of
indicating the inner and outer edges of
the two welts: Brit. Lib., MS Add.
31917, f.2v.
34. Antiquities of Berkshire (1719), ii,
201: "a Person in a Barrister of Laws
Gown."
35. The only court mourning prescribed
for the junior Bar is "mourning
bands"; these are to be worn only
during general mourning. Queen's
Counsel wear mourning bands and also
"weepers" on their cuffs throughout
court mourning. See Annual State-
ment of the Bar Council 1965, p.31.
36. Loc.cit. in note 32.
37. N. Luttrell,A Brief Historical Relation
of State Affairs (1854) iv, 299.
38. Ibid., p.336. Hargreaves-Mawdsley,
op.cit., p.89, misunderstood this and
concluded that in 1685 "barristers
temporally (sic) assumed black silk
gowns in place of the black stuff ones
as a mourning dress." He was perhaps
following J .C. Jeaffreson, A Book
about Lawyers (1867), ii, 9-10, who
made a similar error.
39. Harvard Law School, MS 1071, f.57;
Brit. Lib., MS Add. 22609, f.52. The
former seems to be the autograph.
21
Wright says that the old gowns were
"made of Grogram with Wings, and
faced and guarded with Velvet".
40. Hawkins, lac. cit. in note 30. This is
often repeated by later antiquaries,
sometimes with Queen Anne sub-
stitu ted for Queen Mary.
41. Brit. Lib., MS Add. 41843, f.62: note
on the expense of call to the Bar.
Jeaffreson,loc.cit. in note 38, says the
cost in 1867 was about 30s. Wright,
loc.cit. in note 39, gives an additional
reason: "there happen'd a kind of stop
to this Proceeding for some time,
occasion'd by a Vote of the House of
Commons, Jan.26 in this Term, viz.
that a Clause might be received into
the Bill for encouraging the Woollen
Manufacture (then in agitation in that
House) to enjoyn all Magistrates and
Judges, Students of the Universities,
and all Professors of the Common and
Civil Laws, to wear Gowns made of the
Woollen Manufacture of this King-
dome." The clause did not pass onto
the statute book.
42. There is much information on this
subject in P. Cunnington and C. Lucas,
Costume for Births, Marriages and
Deaths (1972).
43. T. Lant, Sequitur celebritas et pompa
funeris ... (1587). See the sketch
based on this in Cunnington and
Lucas, op.cit., fig.64 and fig. 87. See
also the paintings of funeral pro-
cessions in Brit. Lib., MS Add. 35324.
Very similar costume is to be seen in
the much later work by F. Sandford,
The Interment of George Monk, Duke
of Albermarle (1670).
44. The Judges' Rules of 4 June 1635,
printed in Dugdale, op.cit.
pp.101-102, explain (rather darkly)
that: "The Scarlet Casting-Hood is to
be put above the Tippet, on the right
side: for Justice Walmesley and Justice
Warburton, and all the Judges before,
did wear them in that manner; and did
declare, that by wearing the Hood on
the right side, and above the Tippet,
was signified more temporal dignity;
and by the Tippet (sic) on the left side
only, the Judges did resemble Priests."
45. Vertue's engraving of Vernon, after a
painting by Kneller, appears to show
the same gown; but it is taken from the
sitter's right, and the appendage is not
visible. The engraving is dated 1725.
46. Annual Statement of the Bar Council
1974, p.52.