Legal Wear History

The following stories are extracts from various sources found on the internet.

Wigs & Gowns. A lasting tradition. Victoria Law Foundation

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• Wigs and gowns form part of an archaic historical tradition that might indicate outdated attitudes.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.

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 Junior barristers and senior barristers (also known as Queen's Counsel and Senior Counsel) are distinguished by the design and cut of their gowns, the material of the gown, the style of the wig, and other items of regalia.

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 ellipois. 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.

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 fibres; goat, yak or horsehair; or human hair. Today, all styles of legal wigs are made from horsehair.

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 fullbottomed 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.

This story was found from the following link: http://www.victorialaw.org.au/pdfebook/WIGS_AND_GOWNS_BROCHURE.PDF

'Why are you wearing a Wig?'

Changes in 'Court Etiquette in South Australia
by Dr John Emerson

It is wigs, gowns and jabots that first strike the visitor to the District or Supreme Court. She or he might assume that their use is part of a continual tradition stretching back across the centuries to England.

This is not the case in South Australia, although the current tradition has remained unchanged since just after Samuel Way became Chief Justice in 1876, not long before the foundation of the Law Society. But South Australia's first Chief Justice, Charles Cooper, wanted nothing to do with wigs: Most of the members of the early South Australian bar had been trained as attorneys or solicitors in Great Britain. They therefore had no wigs as only barristers in Britain wore them in court, and there was nowhere to buy them in Australia. Charles Cooper himself wore a black gown and jabot, the same as the members of the bar.

Cooper was the only judge until 1850. In May 1846 two English barristers arrived for a case before him, wigged. The local paper reported that 'though it certainly reminds us of the Courts at home, being dispensed with by his Honour and the Colonial Bar it is hardly in the best taste to wear.' Cooper thought they were making themselves ridiculous, and told them so: 'If anyone is justified in wearing a wig, it is myself; for in summer I am tormented with the flies settling on my bare head, But I fear that, if I were to adopt it, I should be still more fatigued than I am already by the long sittings which I frequently have to endure’.

Cooper later made-in 1850-a rule of court that 'the costume of the gentlemen attending the Court should be, as heretofore, a black coat and waistcoat, a white neck cloth and bands'.

Dr George Crawford arrived later that same year as the State's second judge, and in August 1850 he appeared at the criminal sessions in his wig. According to Ralph Hague, this was the first time a judge wore a wig in South Australia. Chief Justice Cooper must have finally yielded, for in the full court sittings later that month he also wore one, and they have been worn since.

Yet no English law has ever required wigs to be worn in court either by judges or counsel. The most recent official instructions for courtroom attire in England were the Judicial Rules of 1635, issued before the wig was introduced into England in 1660 by Charles IT, returning from exile in Louis XIV's France. These instructions have apparently never been updated. It was only the fashion of wig-wearing by gentlemen that took off in the 1680s that saw wigs being worn in court. But it was only ever fashion, never a formal requirement. When Wigs went out of fashion in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the courts kept them.

South Australian judges, now wigged, continued to wear plain black gowns for all cases, criminal and civil. Samuel Way would change this.

During his trip to England in 1869-1870 he became totally enamoured with London's legal institutions and traditions. When he was appointed silk in 1871, he ordered a silk gown, waistcoat, knee-breeches, black stockings and a pair of shoes with silver buckles, all from London, telling the taylor: 'I could get them in Melboume, but prefer your work to Colonial'.

When Way was appointed Chief Justice in 1876 he had the power to model the Supreme Court on the High Court of Judicature in England. In July 1877, the Register reported:

The forms of the judicial tribunals of the mother-country are being gradually introduced into the Courts of this Colony. The latest innovation on previous practice is the wearing of the time-honoured distinctive costumes by some of the Judges. The Chief Justice, in presiding at the libel action in the Supreme Court, appeared in the scarlet robes trimmed with ermine which had been for centuries the dress worn by Judges when presiding in Criminal Sessions.

The different robes for different sittings were introduced and remain in force, and 128 years later there is no sign of change. But times are changing for the wig. After 155 years it will no longer be worn in civil cases from the start of next year.

In the mid-1950s a 120 years old tradition came to an end which had structured the Supreme Court's work during each year into four terms, split by two vacation periods. Each term went for 29 days, including Sundays.

The first term of each year began on the Last Monday in March, the second term be-an on the last Monday of June, the last Third on the last Monday of September and the fourth on the last Monday of November. Court also sat on Saturday mornings until around this time.

The two vacation periods when there were no sittings at all were quite lengthy. The Christmas vacation started on 25 December and ended on 25 February. The winter vacation began each year on the nearest Monday to 25 July and went for three weeks.

For a quarter of each year there were no sittings. Nevertheless, a vacation judge was always on standby to hear urgent matters in chambers. The terms system was quietly abandoned around 1956, no doubt a response to the courts' ever-increasing workload.

Judge's associates have always been appointed for a year and not more than two or three, and were usually recent graduates. But there used to be exceptions, unlike now. Frederick Richards, for example, was associate to Sir Samuel Way for seven years - from 1901 until 1908. He was also much older, being 39 years old when he left. His next job after Way was Assistant Crown Solicitor, and he was eventually appointed to the Supreme Court in 1927. Cedric Isaachsen remembers a judge's associate called 'Sailor' Webb, who spent several years with Sir Mellis Napier in the 1930s and 1940s, and who like Richards, was much older than most associates.

The biggest change in the history of judge's associates was the end of their lucrative 'perquisites' in 1932. Up until then, they charged one shilling six pence for each sworn affidavit to be filed with records of a case, and their fees for copies of judgments allowed for a profit after subtracting the typist's costs. The catalyst for ending perquisites was a Master of the Supreme Court embezzling money around 1930, which triggered a complete restructuring of the court's financial arrangements.

Supreme Court judges were always known as 'Mr. Justice' until Australia's first female judicial appointment, Roma Mitchell on 23 September 1965. Chief Justice Sir Mellis Napier was forced to consider a new etiquette:

Her appointment seems to have taken him by surprise: His first reaction was that all members of the court must be addressed to and referred to without distinction and she must therefore be known as 'Mr. Justice Mitchell'. The absurdity of this was soon pointed out to him and he thereupon directed that all member of the court be known as 'Justice' without a prefix. This eminently sensible direction seems to have been received with ill-grace by at least some of the male members of the court. The direction remained in force, however, until Sir Mellis retired, whereupon the male members of the court reverted to 'Mr. Justice', the female member remaining as 'Justice'.

This remained the case until Len King became Chief Justice in 1978 and again removed the 'Mr.' so that there was no distinction based on gender. This remains the case to this day; and is certainly less cumbersome than the Canadian system of 'Mr. Justice' and 'Madam Justice'.
 
Dr. John Emerson
Law School
University of Adelaide

This story was taken from the following link: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/fullText;dn=20050129;res=AGISPT

Of Wigs, Wig Bags and Rosettes

by His Honour Judge Paul Healy

Wigs

It is said that in 1620 the Abbe de Riviere appeared at the court of Louis XIII wearing a wig simulating long fair hair. Louis XIII (1601-1643) is thought to have adopted the practice a few years later to conceal his premature baldness. The fashion rapidly spread from Versailles throughout western Europe. Others say that Louis XIV (1638-1715) who succeeded Louis XIII in 1643 was responsible for the fashion, as he had abundant locks; those courtiers more hair-challenged than he sought to preserve parity by wearing Wigs.

However, the fashion arose, in England, as elsewhere, a wig became part of the dress of persons in polite society. Wigs were added to the dress of barristers after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Charles II introduced the periwig in 1663 (1) and by the 1680s 'wigs were generally worn by bench and bar. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the style of wigs worn by lawyers and judges varied considerably, as seen in portraits. Judges sitting in crime ceased to wear the full-bottomed wig in the 1840s' (2). The types of wigs worn by banisters were the barrister's wig and the full-bottomed wig, which was worn by senior counsel.

In 1705, grey and white powdered wigs were introduced. The wig was made of hair and was covered with pomade and then powdered to keep the hair in the wig free from disease (3). "There were different kinds of pomade, some with a safe base, such as lad or beef marrow and the others with a hard base, such as beef or mutton tallow. Paraffin wax or spermaceti, was added to make the pomade firmer. The powder was made of finely ground starch, flour or other suitable particles (4). The powder was blown onto the wig with the aid of a bellows or blower. If the powder was applied whilst a person was wearing the wig, a face cone was used to protect the wearer's face.

The adoption of a smaller wig for daily wear by barristers followed changes in general fashion. After 1720, smaller wigs became the fashion, but judges continued to wear full-bottomed wigs, either of white or natural colored hair. In about 1770, judges took to wearing smaller wigs for ordinary occasions. For a period the wig had a triple queue, which became associated with the bar, but, from about 1780, these had been reduced to the current two (5). Thus the present wig is in line with fashion as it was in the 1780s (6).

In the middle of the 18tIl century, Hogarth attacked the wearing of wigs. He lampooned the fashion in his sketches referred to as the Five Orders of Periwigs: Episcopal, Aldermanic, Legal, Queerinthian and Composite (7). During the early part of the reign of George III (1760-1820), wigs went rapidly out of lay use. In 1765 there occurred the so-called Perke Riot (8). London wig makers wanted to present a petition to the King requiring him to have persons of quality continue to wear wigs. They carried it in procession to St .James' Palace and, as they marched through the streets, it was seen that most were not wearing wigs themselves. This enraged the London mob as being unfair and inconsistent. The mob seized the petitioners and cut off their hair.

Despite criticism by such as Hogarth, the legal profession persisted with the practice of wearing wigs, long after wigs ceased to be worn by most people of quality. By the end of the century, wigs were generally only worn by coachmen, lawyers and bishops (9). Coachmen still wear wigs on ceremonial occasions, such as coronations, the opening of Parliament and Royal weddings. Bishops continued to wear full-bottomed wigs until in 1832, when William IV gave them permission to abandon them. However, as can be seen from the painting of Queen Victoria's coronation, Archbishop Howley and other church dignitaries are wearing wigs. It is said that Dr Blomfield, the Bishop of London, was the last bishop to wear this headgear, which he did until his death in 1855 (10).

The tie, or tye, wig worn by judges has a double queue, but only one vertical curl over the queues. There is a circular depression on the crown. This patch is retained as the place to house a token coif. The coif was a white head covering which was part of the dress with which a Sergeant was invested at his creation (11). Some are of the view that the coif was derived from the sweating cap used by Knights Templars, though very little is known about the connection between sergeants and templars (12).

The present style of barrister's wig is a combination of the tie wig, worn by judges, and the Ramillies peruke. It is also referred to a curled tie wig (13). The wig has 30 curls made up of three rows of seven curls, one row of four curls, one perpendicular curl, a row of two curls and a double queue with a baby curl at the end of each (14). In 1822, Mr Ravenscroft patented an empowered forensic wig of this type (15). By the end of the century, the powdering of wigs had virtually ceased. According to Derriman (16), powdered wigs were said to have been worn on the Oxford circuit long after the custom had disappeared elsewhere. The clerk of Assize of the Midland circuit was still wearing a powdered wig in 1939.

Wig bag

After the Restoration, gentlemen wore court dress that consisted of a black velvet court coat, which was a special style of tail coat with elaborates buttons, gauntlet cuffs and braid, court waistcoat and breeches. The coats were usually made from rich silk velvet, which is a delicate fabric. The powder from the wig would work its way down the tails of the wig and damage the velvet of the coat. The wig bag was used to prevent the powder soiling the velvet coat.

Cox writes that a "wig bag", bagwig or rose bag was 'a silk bag in which the queue of the 18th  century wig' was enclosed when the wig was being worn' (17). The silk bag was also referred to as a purse. As wigs were thought to have originated in France, the French words hourse (pocket money bag) and crapaud (toad) were also used to refer to this silk bag. The open end of the bag was enclosed around the top of the queue by a drawstring which was concealed beneath a stiff black decorative bow. The name rose bag was derived from the rose-like bow tied to secure the queue within the bag. There is a sketch in Cox (18) showing a bag, rosette and the cords to close the bag.

When the wig had ceased to be worn by polite society, the wig bag was moved to the back of the coat. It is sometimes referred to today as a dress coat bag. In England it is now only worn on ceremonial occasion by those persons who wear a court coat, waistcoat and breeches. These include the lord chancellor, the speaker of the House of Commons, the judiciary, QCs, the lord mayor of London, high sheriffs of counties and senior officials at the Palace of Westminster, such as the gentleman usher of the black rod and the sergeant at arms. The velvet court dress has fallen into disuse, apart from high sheriffs and the lord mayor of London. The velvet coat was only worn by others on the most formal occasions. A black cloth version was used for everyday wear'.

Rosette

The lord chancellor's consultation paper makes no reference to the wig bag or rosette in its discussion of present day dress or in the appendix which sets out an outline on the history of legal robes worn in England and Wales. It describes the court suit worn by judges and QCs and counsel in England and Wales as including in its fullest form a black swallow-tail coat with cuffs, vest (or waistcoat) and knee breeches, worn with silk stocking and patent leather pumps with buckle (19). This degree of formality has long been abandoned in Western Australia. In the second appendix, as to the cost of court dress, reference is made to rosette (queue bag) as being part of the basic requirements of High Court and circuit judges and QCs. All the photographs in appendix 5 in the paper show only front views of the court robes of various officers and counsel.

Rosettes were worn on the robes of 18th century lords president of session in Scotland. These rosettes seem to have evolved from bows used for fastening robes. In portrait of Lord Kennet, lord of justiciary 1759-76, the bunches of ribbons on the shoulder piece have become rosettes. The rosettes were plum colored (20). In the recent documentary on Channel 2 Inside the Lords, the gentleman usher of the black rod played a prominent role. When attending the House of Lords in ordinary dress, black rod wears court dress, black shoes, with black buckles, silk stockings, black breeches and a black coat with a black wig bag at the back. He also wears a sword in black scabbard (21). The wig bag on his coat looked identical to the rosette worn by Victorian silks.

The rosette which QCs from Victoria wear on their jackets can thus be traced to the rose-like bow tied to secure the queue in the wig bag. The rosette is not attached to the gown but to the bar jacket. The Victorian rosette is slashed to make a pocket and it is traditional for a sovereign to be placed in the pocket.

The question arises as to why Victorian silks seem to be the only counsel in Australia who incorporate the rosette on their bar jacket. Some say the custom derive from Irish barristers who emigrated to Victoria. Castles (22) makes reference to Victoria being a major centre for such emigration at the time of the gold rush. However, he makes no reference to this item of dress being part of their legacy. Irish legal dress never different from mat of England, except that of Irish sergeants who did not have a particular dress until 1639 (23).

Dean (24) in his history of the Victorian bar, makes no reference to the rosette or its origin. The first Victorian silks, Archibald Michie and Richard David Ireland, were appointed in 1863. Michie was born in England in 1813 and had been called at the Middle Temple in 1838 before emigrating to Sydney in 1839 and Ireland was born in 1816 in Ireland, called at King's Inn Dublin in 1838 before he went to Victoria in 1853 (22,25). I understand that the Irish bar has abandoned the rosette. When Irish barristers were asked about it at a recent bar conference held in Dublin, they expressed ignorance of the custom said to have derived from the dress of emigrant Irish barristers.

Notes

1. Hargreaves-Mawdsley WN. A History of Legal Dress in Europe until the End of the Eighteenth Century (1963). Oxford University Press (Oxford) p66.
2. Consultation paper on court dress issued on behalf of the lord chancellor in August 1992. App 15.2.2-
3. Ede and Ravenscroft, Gentleman's Outfitters (persona! correspondence).
4. Cox J S. An Illustrated Dictionarv of Hairdressing and Wigmaking (1966). Barsford (London) 81:124.
5. Refer Note 1, p90.
6. Sugerinan B (1973) 47 ALJ 39.
7. Blackhain. The Story of the Temple and Gray's and Lincoln's Inn p186.
8. Refer note 4, p1l7.
9. Refer Note 2, 5.1.1.
10. Milton  R. The English Ceremonial Book (1972). David and Charles p129.
11. Windeyer W (1974) 48 ALJ 40 I.
12. Refer Note 1, p71.
13. Refer Note 2, App 15.3.1.
14. Refer note 4, p 24.
15. Refer; Note 2, App. 15.1 3.
16. Derriman. The Pageantry of the Law, Eyre & Spottiswode (1955) London, p38.
17. Refer Note 4, p20.
18. ReferNote4,p 215 fig9.
19. Refer Note 2, 7.3.1.
20. Refer note 1, p97.
21. Bond M & Beamisk D. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (1981) FINISO 2nd impression.
22. Castles (1992) 66 ALJ 534.
23. Refer Note 1, p102.
24. Dcan. A Multitude of Counsellors (1968). FW Cheshire (Melbourne).
25. ibid, p 72, 78.

This story taken from the following link: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/fullText;dn=20002100;res=AGISPT