London ? Against all odds, they outlasted the manufacturers of buggies by about a century, but now it appears the days of the wigmakers are numbered.

Ending one of the longest-running and most heated arguments in Britain’s legal community, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Nicholas Phillips has decided that judges and lawyers in civil cases will no longer wear wigs and wing collars in the courtroom.

The ceremonial dress, adopted in the late 17th Century, will now be worn only during criminal proceedings.

“I’ve gone through about two boxes of Kleenex tissues since they announced this decision,” said London Alderman Stanley Ginsburg, himself a former wigmaker and now the owner of a shop that caters to the sartorial needs of Britain’s bar.

“I’ll lose 50 percent of my business in a stroke. If I told you what I thought of Lord Phillips’ decision, I’d be thrown in prison for contempt of court.”

Opinion surveys indicate that most barristers and judges would prefer to keep their wigs but that the public overwhelmingly supports a more modern look for the legal profession.

Xenia Manassi-Starkey, a young London barrister, cut an imposing figure as she swept down the corridors of the Royal Courts of Justice in her black robe, starched white collar and frizzed wig. She said she has mixed feelings about the change.

“I suppose it will make it easier for us to approach our clients. They won’t see us as somebody who is way above and beyond them,” she said.

“But there will be some loss of prestige. In the eyes of the public we will be seen as more commercially minded, maybe more corruptible, not as a profession that is elevated above all of that.”

Even sorrier to see the wigs go are the few dozen artisans who earn their livelihoods weaving and wefting horsehair into judicial headgear. They can expect to see their ranks thinned dramatically as a result of the ruling.

“The wigs are made in a very old-fashioned way. It takes a lot of work. We have different people doing different parts of it – and I really don’t want to say too much more about how we make them, or the next thing you know they’ll be making them in China,” Ginsburg said.

Judges and lawyers began wearing wigs in the 1680s, following a fashion trend set by King Charles II.

In the crowded, unsanitary and often malodorous courtrooms of the 18th Century, the wearing of wigs was thought to protect the wearers from the spread of head lice. Also, the perfume applied to wigs helped cut the unpleasant odors of criminals.

In 1822, a London wigmaker named Humphrey Ravenscroft achieved a major breakthrough when he patented a low-maintenance horsehair judicial wig that did not require constant frizzing, curling or powdering.

The cost of such finery can be high. The cost ranges from $1,000 to $4,000 for wigs. Outfitting a senior judge in robes and collars and wigs can cost up to $30,000.

The official argument for wearing what some would argue is a rather arcane get-up is that it lends an air of dignity and solemnity to legal proceedings. The wig and robe also minimize the wearer’s individual personality and emphasize the institution he or she serves, said Thomas Woodcock, an expert on heraldry who has written a treatise on the subject of judicial regalia.

“It does make the point that justice is impartial and abstract, and I think there’s something to be said for that,” he said.