On a wig and a prayer

Like marmalade on toast, saying sorry and the Shipping Forecast, there are few things more typically British than the courtroom wig, says Agnes Stamp

- Agnes Stamp

THEY are the undeniable emblem of our judicial system. Perukes, worn together with robes, have been a mainstay of courtroom dress from about 1685, bringing an air of solemnity and formality to proceedings. In the case of the criminal courts, they once helped to safeguard the identities of the judges and barristers involved, too.

Throughout the 17th century, the 'correct' length of hair for men was much debated and, by the mid 1640s, when hair was worn long, hairpieces and wigs began to appear. By the following decade, the practice of wigwearing was widespread across Britain, in spite of continuing criticism from puritans and satirists. Clergyman and critic Thomas Hall declared in 1653 that 'these Periwigs of false-coloured haire (which begin to be rife, even amongst scholars in the Universities) are utterly unlawful, and are condemned by Christ himself'.

It was, of course, the court of the ruler that defined the dress code for polite society. Following in the (high-heeled) footsteps of his cousin Louis XIV, who had popularised wigs among the French aristocracy, Charles II brought the fashion to Britain. Samuel Pepys records the King dressed in a periwig in April 1664 and, thereafter, the royal accounts list many 'heads of hair' as they evolved into an essential part of male dress and, indeed, 'undress'.