hardwicke

Lord Hardwicke in a bin, 290 years too late.


Hardwicke Chambers is rebranding itself as Gatehouse Chambers because of its discomfort at being named after an advocate of the slave trade.

Several law firms and chambers were targeted during the Black Lives Matter protests for their historic links to slavery, including Hardwicke Chambers. 

It had the misfortune of having taken its name from the building in which it was founded in 1991, which had in turn been named for Lord Hardwicke, an 18th century Lord Chancellor who co-authored an opinion in 1729 which provided slave owners with a legal justification for keeping people as chattels. 

“The discovery of the provenance of our business’ name did not sit comfortably with our values as an organisation", said Brie Stevens-Hoare QC, Hardwicke's Joint Head of Chambers.

And so last summer its members decided to pick a new name "signifying strength and trustworthiness, but also access to new adventures and opportunities": Gatehouse Chambers.

A gatehouse is traditionally the most heavily armed part of a fortification because, as an entranceway, it is especially vulnerable to enemy attack. It means Hardwicke's new name fittingly evokes a barrister protecting her client where he is weakest, and pouring boiling oil over the other side if they walk under a murder hole.

PJ Kirby QC, the Joint Head of Hardwicke, insisted, "It’s not about paying lip service to this issue but truly living out these values and that’s why changing our name was an important decision for us".

However, Hardwicke’s decision sets an awkward precedent for other businesses in the sector tainted by historic links to slavery.

Farrer & Co is named after Oliver Farrer, a founding partner who helped slave owners in Jamaica claim fortunes in compensation when slave labour was abolished in the British colonies in the 19th century.

And while Freshfields founder James Freshfield was a member of the pro-abolition Church Missionary Society, he also acted for slave owners from the Caribbean.

Neither firm would tell RollOnFriday if they now intended to erase all mention of their problematic partners, and Amanda Illing, Gatehouse’s Chief Executive, said it wasn’t for her set to pontificate on the right approach.

“It’s very difficult for us to comment on what other firms should be doing”, she told RollOnFriday. “All I can talk about is the reasoning behind our decision to rename and what it meant for us. The Hardwicke name didn’t fit with our ethos, values and who we are as an organisation and it was time for a change.”

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Instructing solicitor 18 June 21 08:41

It is interesting to note that Hardwicke Chambers has only just chosen to retain its links with Stonewall, an organisation which ultimately takes its name from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the Confederate general who actively fought to retain slavery in the south of the United States.  Total hypocrisy.

Well that was convenient... 18 June 21 09:01

As I understand it (it might also be covered above as I only read the headlines) the Chambers was looking to rebrand anyway. This is pure opportunism - perhaps Disraeli Chambers would be a more apt new name. 

Anonymous 18 June 21 09:05

Tsk. Hardwicke's failure to campaign to cancel Farrers and Freshfields indicates a lack of real wokery here. Must try harder.

Anonymous 18 June 21 09:10

Saxons and Romans were slave-owners. Should we rename every town with a Roman or Saxon name? Come on - this is a matter of history. 

The name change is utter tokenism. If Hardwicke did care about slavery, it would put out a strong message supporting the freedom of the Essex Street barristers who gave their legal opinion about genocide in Xinjiang and the need for human rights in China to be respected.

Anonymous 18 June 21 09:49

How dare they decide to change the name of their own business.

Who do they think they are?

Prince Philip is barely in the ground and now this!

It's the queen I feel sorry for.

Anonymous 18 June 21 09:55

So now we're all supposed to reject slavery as a force for good?

Well that's ridiculousl.

Some people might think that slavery wasn't so bad.

What about their rights?

Anonymous 18 June 21 10:03

I bet Hardwicke was pleased when rof asked an awkward question instead of swallowing the press release whole.

Anonymous 18 June 21 10:13

Saxons and Romans were slave-owners. Should we rename every town with a Roman or Saxon name? Come on - this is a matter of history. 

Hardwicke Chambers has only just chosen to retain its links with Stonewall

 

This might be a bit over your head but they only have control over their own name.  They can't mandate towns or other organisations to change theirs.

Limits on rights and responsibilities can be quite important in law.  Hope that helps you when you get to sixth form college.

Dearie 18 June 21 10:16

Meh. It might be tokenism but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. They don't need a reason to change the name and why should we care what their reason is? It's been fashionable for a while for chambers and law firms to adopt more modern sounding names.

Anonymous 18 June 21 10:26

Chancery Bar 18 June 21 10:23

A non entity chambers changes its name. Who cares.

Anon 18 June 21 09:33

What a lack of judgement. Nobody cares what this second rate common law set is called. 

Clearly you do mate, or you wouldn't have bothered post about it.

You played yourself sun.

You played yourself.

Anon 18 June 21 10:46

Chancery Bar 18 June 21 10:23: so true. They never fitted into Lincoln’s Inn, anyway. Not a bright enough lot.

Anonymous 18 June 21 11:13

I knew a barrister at Hardwicke a few years ago.  She was explaining to me that counsel there aren't tenants with the security of tenancy as seen in other sets.  Instead, they have billable hours targets that are ruthlessly enforced/pursued by clerks, who she likened to overseers.  The threat of termination of tenancy hangs over anybody whose billable hours aren't up to scratch.  Does anybody know whether this is still the case?  If so, are there any parallels with slavery?

Anonymous 18 June 21 11:22

Anon 18 June 21 10:53

The rest of the Bar think it is very silly of Hardwicke to do this.

Surely this is peak moron, even for Roll On Friday commentators.

The only thing you've ever asked the bar is where to find an illegal dog fight, and that was in a flat roofed pub in Wythenshawe.

Anon 18 June 21 11:22

As a private enterprise, Hardwicke/Gatehouse can call themselves what they like. Does seem a bit odd for barristers to effectively cancel counsel for giving a legal opinion on a matter. Will prizes be cancelled if they are named for a sponsor who ever gave a favourable opinion on an unattractive subject?

Anon Chancery Bar 18 June 21 11:23

Delighted to see that so many at the Bar have a considered view of their progressive approach and what they are doing. Of course none of those views are to be found on ROF's comment section, which appears populated by nutters, but this sh!t is entertaining to read anyway, whilst the clock is running... 

anon 18 June 21 11:38

Attitudes change but old habits die hard.  

In the 17th and 18th centuries, Europeans thought it was perfectly acceptable to enslave on an industrial scale Africans because Africans were considered sub-human. 

In the 21st century Europeans think it is no longer acceptable (at least openly) to enslave Africans, so want to rename and replace institutions linked to the Trans- Atlantic slave trade. 

However, the issue is complex because the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was complex. Simply changing the name of a building or taking down a statute will not remove the stenching smell of slavery that will forever stain Western civilization. 

Hardwicke should have a hard look at itself (https://hardwicke.co.uk/people/barristers). It is as white as driven snow. If Hardwicke really wants to confront the demons of its past, maybe it should stop virtue signalling by changing its name to something totally irrelevant, and start by improving its diversity. 

Toby Greenlord - Fremen on Arrakis 18 June 21 11:45

I can no longer tell the difference between genuine nutters and parody nutters.

Silky 18 June 21 11:45

The profession is in dire need of an opinion on the appropriate amount of name-changing an organisation’s proximity to slavery requires.

As an near-qualified barrister I shall provide it for free:

Level 1: Named after a slave - no action required.

Level 2: Named after a building named after a politician who helped slave owners - must change own name.

Level 3: Named after a slave owner - must change own name and someone else’s name.

Level 4: Owns slaves - must pay for their taxis home.

Hardwicke clearly falls within Level 2 and has therefore discharged its obligations. 

A thought 18 June 21 11:59

Maybe they are finding it difficult to attract diverse talent whilst using a slave owners name? So whilst the name change seems an empty gesture perhaps the change will help them attract more diverse candidates? 

Anonymous 18 June 21 12:14

Hardwicke wasn’t a slave owner.
And virtually no-one knew anything about it until they changed their name. 

Chancery Bar 18 June 21 13:13

Anonymous 18 June 21 12:14: yes, and  virtually nobody had heard of Hardwicke Chambers until now.

Paul 18 June 21 14:54

"He co-authored an opinion in 1729 which provided slave owners with a legal justification for keeping people as chattels."

I don't think that is how legal opinions work.  It was the law that gave slave owners a legal justification for keeping slaves, not his opinion of it.

Nail on head 18 June 21 16:02

Absolutely spot on Paul @ 14.54.  From the voting I guess Hardwicke's marketing manager has 32 electronic devices. 

HQ 18 June 21 16:34

I think everyone who has commented on this thread (from whatever angle) has expressed in one way or another that virtue signalling is not enough. 

Anonymous 18 June 21 17:13

Nail on head 18 June 21 16:02

Absolutely spot on Paul @ 14.54.  From the voting I guess Hardwicke's marketing manager has 32 electronic devices. 

HQ 18 June 21 16:34

I think everyone who has commented on this thread (from whatever angle) has expressed in one way or another that virtue signalling is not enough. 

I don't know how to break it to you but lawyers can read.  It's kind of part of the job.

So when you post nonsense we can see it.

Anonymous 18 June 21 17:22

Nail on head 18 June 21 16:02

From the voting I guess Hardwicke's marketing manager has 32 electronic devices. 

 

Seems likely.

I mean, who doesn't.

And she's probably got nothing better to do than worry about a commentator on Roll On Friday.

Unless she's already got an ----hole.  In that case she probably won't be that interested.

The Lozza Fox 18 June 21 18:04

Hardwicke?

I'm pretty sure that's Middle English for erection.

No wonder the wokerati made them change it.

We should be proud of our erections.

Unless you don't have a "wicke" - which probably means you're foreign or deformed.

I'm a giant throbbing member and I'm damn proud of it.

AbsurdinessBrown 19 June 21 04:02

"Brie Stevens-Hoare QC, Hardwicke's Joint Head of Chambers."

She's named after a cheese. No wonder. 

Anonymous 19 June 21 17:09

The name change is utter tokenism. If Hardwicke did care about slavery, it would put out a strong message supporting the freedom of the Essex Street barristers who gave their legal opinion about genocide in Xinjiang and the need for human rights in China to be respected.

It's a bizarre conceit of a certain kind of gormless right-wing commentator that you're not allowed to do anything unless you do everything.  

 

Anonymous 19 June 21 20:14

It is interesting to note that Hardwicke Chambers has only just chosen to retain its links with Stonewall, an organisation which ultimately takes its name from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the Confederate general who actively fought to retain slavery in the south of the United States.  Total hypocrisy.

 

Who says whataboutery is a dying art?

Instructing solicitor 20 June 21 13:54

Whataboutery is a valid and useful exercise. 

If you're purporting to take a certain course of action on the basis of a particular moral principle, the fact that you are not willing to act on that principle in other cases tends to suggest that you weren't acting out of principle in the first place, but for some other reason. 

Why is it that this chambers is so willing to distance itself from slavery in some cases but not in others?

Hardwicke is a member of Combar - why not put out a statement supporting Essex Court Chambers in light of the sanctions imposed by the Chinese government over the opinion of some ECC barristers on what is happening to the Uyghurs? 

Wouldn't that be of more practical use in combatting slavery than posturing over slavery in British controlled territories, which ended over 150 years ago?

Is it because Hardwicke is hoping to pick up more China related work? It is notable that a search for "China" on the Hardwicke website brings up quite a lot of results.

Don't think that people that don't notice this stinking hypocrisy.  They do.

 

 

 

Anonymous 20 June 21 20:11

ThEy ChAnGeD ThEiR nAmE bUt ThEy HaVeN't StArTeD a WaR wItH cHiNa.

 

Mate.  You got issues.

 

Toby Greenlord - Freeman on the Land 20 June 21 22:57

A bunch of people I don't know have done something which will have no effect on me whatsoever.

I'm jolly cross about it.

I don't know what I want but I want it now.

Anonymous 21 June 21 07:41

She's named after a cheese. No wonder. 

 

Don't miss next week's hilarious intervention when Absurdiness Brown will make a farting noise with his armpit.

Anonymous 21 June 21 09:06

Anonymous 21 June 21 07:58: whataboutery is a useful exercise for the reasons explained by Instructing solicitor 20 June 21 13:54.

Anonymous 21 June 21 11:50

I can't help thinking that if Hardwicke had just changed the name without announcing a reason for it, no-one would be commenting about it.

Personally I think it's a good thing in the same way that it's a good thing Colson's statue was taken down in Bristol.

If we are not a racist society then people of colour should not have to see and hear commemorations and celebrations of those who enslaved them and regarded them as sub-human.

Anonymous 21 June 21 16:58

I often find that talking about something irrelevant to the point at hand is very useful for dodging the issues so I often resort to whataboutery.

Einstein considered shopping trolley wheels one of the finest inventions ever made because they demonstrated so perfectly the random nature or the universe.

Obi-Dan 21 June 21 19:20

Not quite sure whether "Instructing Solicitor 18 June 21 08:41" is being ironic:-

Stonewall, as an organisation does NOT  ultimately take its name from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the Confederate general who actively fought to retain slavery in the south of the United States.

It's named after a historic 'Stone Wall' in that part of Manhattan - which in the 1960s constutted part of the front of the relevant building.

https://www.stonewallvets.org/Stonewall_Era_Club_People_Rebellion.htm

 

 

Anonymous 22 June 21 12:32

Obi-Dan 21 June 21 19:20

Not quite sure whether "Instructing Solicitor 18 June 21 08:41" is being ironic:-

You mean a right wing culture warrior is either a liar or simply doesn't know what his talking about?

I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell you.

Mind you, this is the person who tells us that whataboutery is a "useful exercise" so perhaps it's not so surprising.  After all that's as good as admitting that he's quite happy to make up any old crap to make a point regardless of whether it is germane or not.

Anonymous 22 June 21 13:28

Anonymous 21 June 21 16:58: if you are speaking of irrelevant matters, you are not engaging in whataboutery, which is a useful forensic exercise to expose hypocrisy and general humbug.

Anonymous 23 June 21 07:48

Obi-Dan 21 June 21 19:20

Not quite sure whether "Instructing Solicitor 18 June 21 08:41" is being ironic:-

Stonewall, as an organisation does NOT  ultimately take its name from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the Confederate general who actively fought to retain slavery in the south of the United States.

It's named after a historic 'Stone Wall' in that part of Manhattan - which in the 1960s constutted part of the front of the relevant building.

https://www.stonewallvets.org/Stonewall_Era_Club_People_Rebellion.htm

 

It's sweet that you think facts are important to the far right.  All that they care about is power over others.  Lying is an easy way to get it.

Toby Greenlord - Hero to Millions 23 June 21 08:08

For anyone interested in actual facts - here is an analysis of the shameful Yorke-Talbot opinion (https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1271696745836228608 ).

And here is a copy of the actual opinion

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaX7IveX0AYAe1K?format=jpg&name=medium).

It's clear to anyone with a sense of human decency why Hardwicke have decided to change their name.

Anonymous 23 June 21 10:14

Anonymous 22 June 21 13:28

Anonymous 21 June 21 16:58: if you are speaking of irrelevant matters, you are not engaging in whataboutery, which is a useful forensic exercise to expose hypocrisy and general humbug.

No - it's a logical fallacy.  It's a propaganda exercise in which you accuse your opponent of hypocrisy without disproving or discrediting their argument.  It's just polite name-calling.  

Anon 23 June 21 18:59

Anonymous 23 June 21 10:14: no, if logical fallacy or name calling is what you are engaged in, you are not engaging in whataboutery. Whataboutery is a technique of exposing hypocrisy by saying, “Well, you say that you believe X, but you have said or done things which amount to not X, or not said or done things which you would have said or done had you believed X”.

Anonymous 23 June 21 20:36

Anon 23 June 21 18:59

Anonymous 23 June 21 10:14: no, if logical fallacy or name calling is what you are engaged in, you are not engaging in whataboutery. Whataboutery is a technique of exposing hypocrisy by saying, “Well, you say that you believe X, but you have said or done things which amount to not X, or not said or done things which you would have said or done had you believed X”.

Hush darling.  You're embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous 23 June 21 23:33

Given that by the definition of whataboutery there is no relation between the two premises, there can't be any hypocrisy.

That won't stop you from name-calling because it suits you to attack anti-racists.

It's not complicated.

Anonymous 24 June 21 10:13

Anon 23 June 21 19:43

The consensus seems to be that Hardwicke have been very silly.

No sweetie.  The consensus is that Roll On Friday has been infected by a racist troll.

Anon 24 June 21 10:15

Anonymous 23 June 21 20:36: no, I'm embarrassing you by showing that you don't know what whataboutery means.

Anonymous 23 June 21 23:33: no, with whataboutery, there is by definition a relation between the two premises. That is the whole point. It thereby exposes humbug and hypocrisy.

 

Anonymous 24 June 21 11:58

Bar 24 June 21 10:21

This is not going well for Hardwicke.

Ooh look.  A groundless assertion.

The last desperate gasp of a dying argument.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.....

Chancery Bar 24 June 21 12:01

Anon 23 June 21 19:43: absolutely. Hardwicke have been silly and lacked judgment. They should focus on improving their quality of tenants and work.

Anonymous 24 June 21 12:14

Anonymous 21 June 21 16:58: if you are speaking of irrelevant matters, you are not engaging in whataboutery, which is a useful forensic exercise to expose hypocrisy and general humbug.

 

Forensic exercise?

Oh mate.  You really are giving yourself away.

You don't actually know what "forensic" means, do you.

Chancery Bar 24 June 21 16:14

Anonymous 24 June 21 12:14: if you think the word forensic is misused in that context, it is you who doesn't know what the word means. Back to your personal injury work, old chap.

Anon 24 June 21 16:21

Can someone buy Anonymous 24 June 21 12:14 a dictionary or thesaurus? Forensic in this context clearly means a rhetorical or argumentative device. 

Related News