Demand

Demand (pronounced dih-mand (U) or dee–mahnd (non-U))

(1) To ask for with proper authority; claim as a right.

(2) To ask for peremptorily or urgently.

(3) To call for or require as just, proper, or necessary.

(4) In law, to lay formal claim to.

(5) In law, to summon, as to court.

(6) An urgent or pressing requirement.

(7) In economics, the desire to purchase, coupled (hopefully) with the power to do so.

(8) In economics, the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.

(9) A requisition; a legal claim.

(10) A question or inquiry (archaic).

1250-1300: From Middle English demaunden and Anglo-French demaunder, derived from the Medieval Latin dēmandāre (to demand, later to entrust) equivalent to dē + mandāre (to commission, order).  The Old French was demander and, like the English, meant “to request” whereas "to ask for as a right" emerged in the early fifteenth century from Anglo-French legal use.  As used in economic theory and political economy (correlating to supply), first attested from 1776 in the writings of Adam Smith.  The word demand as used by economists is a neutral term which references only the conjunction of (1) a consumer's desire to purchase goods or services and (2) hopefully the power to do so.  However, in general use, to say that someone is "demanding" something does carry a connotation of anger, aggression or impatience.  For this reason, during the 1970s, the language of those advocating the rights of women to secure safe, lawful abortion services changed from "abortion on demand" (ie the word used as an economist might) to "pro choice".  Technical fields (notably economics) coin derived forms as they're required (counterdemand, overdemand, predemand etc).  Demand is a noun & verb, demanding is a verb & adjective, demandable is an adjective, demanded is a verb and demander is a noun; the noun plural is demands.

Video on Demand (VoD)

Directed by Tiago Mesquita with a screenplay by Mark Morgan, Among the Shadows is a thriller which straddles the genres, elements of horror and the supernatural spliced in as required.  Although in production since 2015, with the shooting in London and Rome not completed until the next year, it wasn’t until 2018 when, at the European Film Market, held in conjunction with the Internationale Filmfestspiele Berli (Berlin International Film Festival), that Tombstone Distribution listed it, the distribution rights acquired by VMI, Momentum and Entertainment One, and VMI Worldwide.  In 2019, it was released progressively on DVD and video on demand (VoD), firstly in European markets, the UK release delayed until mid-2020.  In some markets, for reasons unknown, it was released with the title The Shadow Within.

Video on Demand (VoD) and streaming services are similar concepts in video content distribution but there are differences.  VoD is a system which permits users to view content at any time, these days mostly through a device connected to the internet across IP (Internet Protocol), the selection made from a catalog or library of available titles and despite some occasionally ambiguous messaging in the advertising, the content is held on centralized servers and users can choose directly to stream or download.  The VoD services is now often a sub-set of what a platform offers which includes content which may be rented, purchased or accessed through a subscription.

Streaming is a method of delivering media content in a continuous flow over IP and is very much the product of the fast connections of the twenty-first century.  Packets are transmitted in real-time which enables users to start watching or listening without waiting for an entire file (or file set) to download, the attraction actually being it obviates the need for local storage.  There’s obviously definitional and functional overlap and while VoD can involve streaming, not all streaming services are technically VoD and streaming can also be used for live events, real-time broadcasts, or continuous playback of media without specific on-demand access. By contrast, the core purpose of VoD is to provide access at any time and streaming is a delivery mechanism, VoD a broad concept and streaming a specific method of real-time delivery as suited to live events as stored content.

The Mercedes-Benz SSKL and the Demand Supercharger

Modern rendition of Mercedes-Benz SSLK in schematic, illustrating the drilled-out chassis rails.  The title is misleading because the four or five SSKLs built were all commissioned in 1931 (although it's possible one or more used a modified chassis which had been constructed in 1929).  All SSK chassis were built between 1928-1932 although the model remained in the factory's catalogue until 1933. 

The Mercedes-Benz SSKL was one of the last of the road cars which could win top-line grand prix races.  An evolution of the earlier S, SS and SSK, the SSKL (Super Sports Kurz (short) Leicht (light)) was notable for the extensive drilling of its chassis frame to the point where it was compared to Swiss cheese; reducing weight with no loss of strength.  The SSKs and SSKLs were famous also for the banshee howl from the engine when the supercharger was running; nothing like it would be heard until the wail of the BRM V16s twenty years later.  It was called a demand supercharger because, unlike some constantly-engaged forms of forced-induction, it ran only on-demand, in the upper gears, high in the rev-range, when the throttle was pushed wide-open.  Although it could safely be used for barely a minute at a time, when running, engine power jumped from 240-odd horsepower (HP) to over 300.  The number of SSKLs built has been debated and the factory's records are incomplete because (1) like many competition departments, it produced and modified machines "as required" and wasn't much concerned about documenting the changes and (2) many archives were lost as a result of bomb damage during World War II (1939-1945); most historians suggest there were four or five SSKLs, all completed (or modified from earlier builds) in 1931.  The SSK had enjoyed great success in competition but even in its heyday was in some ways antiquated and although powerful, was very heavy, thus the expedient of the chassis-drilling intended to make it competitive for another season.  Lighter (which didn't solve but at least to a degree ameliorated the brake & tyre wear) and easier to handle than the SSK (although the higher speed brought its own problems, notably in braking), the SSKL enjoyed a long Indian summer and even on tighter circuits where its bulk meant it could be out-manoeuvred, sometimes it still prevailed by virtue of durability and sheer power.

Rudolf Caracciola (1901–1959) and SSKL in the wet, German Grand Prix, Nürburgring, 19 July, 1931.  Alfred Neubauer (1891–1980; racing manager of the Mercedes-Benz competition department 1926-1955) maintained Caracciola "...never really learned to drive but just felt it, the talent coming to him instinctively."    

Sometimes too it got lucky.  When the field assembled in 1931 for the Fünfter Großer Preis von Deutschland (fifth German Grand Prix) at the Nürburgring, even the factory acknowledged that at 1600 kg (3525 lb), the SSKLs, whatever their advantage in horsepower, stood little chance against the nimble Italian and French machines which weighed-in at some 200 KG (440 lb) less.  However, on the day there was heavy rain with most of race conducted on a soaked track and the twitchy Alfa Romeos, Maseratis and the especially skittery Bugattis proved less suited to the slippery surface than the truck-like but stable SSKL, the lead built up in the rain enough to secure victory even though the margin narrowed as the surface dried and a visible racing-line emerged.  Time and the competition had definitely caught up by 1932 however and it was no longer possible further to lighten the chassis or increase power so aerodynamics specialist Baron Reinhard von Koenig-Fachsenfeld (1899-1992) was called upon to design a streamlined body, the lines influenced both by his World War I (1914-1918 and then usually called the "World War") aeronautical experience and the "streamlined" racing cars which had been seen in the previous decade.  At the time, the country greatly was affected by economic depression which spread around the world after the 1929 Wall Street crash, compelling Mercedes-Benz to suspend the operations of its competitions department so the one-off "streamliner" was a private effort (though with some tacit factory assistance) financed by the driver (who borrowed some of the money from his mechanic!).

The streamlined SSKL crosses the finish line, Avus, 1932.

The driver was Manfred von Brauchitsch (1905-2003), nephew of Major General (later Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal)) Walther von Brauchitsch (1881–1948; Oberbefehlshaber (Commander-in-Chief) of OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres (the German army's high command) 1938-1941).  An imposing but ineffectual head of the army, Uncle Walther also borrowed money although rather more than loaned by his nephew's mechanic, the field marshal's funds coming from the state exchequer, "advanced" to him by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945).  Quickly Hitler learned the easy way of keeping his mostly aristocratic generals compliant was to loan them money, give them promotions, adorn them with medals and grant them estates in the lands he'd stolen during his many invasions.  His "loans" proved good investments.  Beyond his exploits on the circuits, Manfred von Brauchitsch's other footnote in the history of the Third Reich (1933-1945) is the letter sent on April Fools' Day 1936 to Uncle Walther (apparently as a courtesy between gentlemen) by Baldur von Schirach (1907-1974; head of the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) 1931-1940 & Gauleiter (district party leader) and Reichsstatthalter (Governor) of Vienna 1940-1945) claiming he given a "horse whipping" to the general's nephew because a remark the racing driver was alleged to have made about Frau von Schirach (the daughter of Hitler's court photographer!).  It does seem von Schirach did just that though it wasn't quite the honorable combat he'd claimed: in the usual Nazi manner he'd arrived at von Brauchitsch's apartment in the company of several thugs and, thus assisted, swung his leather whip.  Von Brauchitsch denied ever making the remarks.  Unlike the German treasury, the mechanic got his money back and that loan proved a good investment, coaxing from the SSKL a victory in its final fling.  Crafted in aluminum by Vetter in Cannstatt, the body was mounted on von Brauchitsch's race-car and proved its worth at the at the Avusrennen (Avus race) in May 1932; with drag reduced by a quarter, the top speed increased by some 12 mph (20 km/h) and the SSKL won its last major trophy on the unique circuit which rewarded straight-line speed like no other.  It was the last of the breed; subsequent grand prix cars would be pure racing machines with none of the compromises demanded for road-use.

Evolution of the front-engined Mercedes-Benz grand prix car, 1928-1954

1928 Mercedes-Benz SS.

As road cars, the Mercedes-Benz W06  S (1927-1928) & SS (1928-1930) borrowed unchanged what had long been the the standard German approach in many fields (foreign policy, military strategy, diplomacy, philosophy etc): robust engineering and brute force; sometimes this combination worked well, sometimes not.  Eschewing refinements in chassis engineering or body construction as practiced by the Italians or French, what the S & SS did was achieved mostly with power and the reliability for which German machinery was already renowned.  Although in tighter conditions often out-manoeuvred, on the faster circuits both were competitive and the toughness of their construction meant, especially on the rough surfaces then found on many road courses, they would outlast the nimble but fragile opposition.

1929 Mercedes-Benz SSK.

By the late 1920s it was obvious an easier path to higher performance than increasing power was to reduce the SS's (Super Sport) size and weight.  The former easily was achieved by reducing the wheelbase, creating a two-seat sports car still suitable for road and track, tighter dimensions and less bulk also reducing fuel consumption and tyre wear, both of which had plagued the big, supercharged cars.  Some engine tuning and the use of lighter body components achieved the objectives and the SSK was in its era a trophy winner in sports car events and on the grand prix circuits.  Confusingly, the "K" element in the name stood for kurz (short) and not kompressor (supercharger) as was applied to some other models although all SSKs used a supercharged, 7.1 litre (433 cubic inch) straight-six. 

1931 Mercedes-Benz SSKL.

The French, British and Italian competition however also were improving their machinery and by late 1930, on the racetracks,  the SSK was becoming something of a relic although it remained most desirable as a road car, demand quelled only by a very high price in what suddenly was a challenging economic climate.  Without the funds to create anything new and with the big engine having reached the end of its development potential, physics made obvious to the engineers more speed could be attained only through a reduction in mass so not only were body components removed or lightened where possible but the chassis and sub-frames were drilled to the point where the whole apparatus was said to resemble "a Swiss cheese".  The process was time consuming but effective because, cutting the SSK's 1600 KG heft to the SSKL's more svelte 1445 (3185), combined with the 300-odd HP which could be enjoyed for about a minute with the supercharger engaged, produced a Grand Prix winner which was competitive for a season longer than any had expected and one also took victory in the 1931 Mille Miglia.  Although it appeared in the press as early a 1932, the "SSKL" designation is retrospective, the factory's extant records listing the machines either as "SSK" or "SSK, model 1931".  No more than five were built and none survive (rumors of a frame "somewhere in Argentina" apparently an urban myth) although some SSK's were at various times "drilled out" to emulate the look and the appeal remains, a replica cobbled together from real and fabricated parts sold at auction in 2007 for over US$2 million; this was when a million dollars was still a lot of money.  

1932 Mercedes-Benz SSKL (die Gurke).

The one-off bodywork (hand beaten from aircraft-grade sheet aluminum) was fabricated for a race held at Berlin's unique Automobil-Verkehrs- und Übungsstraße (Avus; the "Automobile traffic and training road") which featured two straights each some 6 miles (10 km) in length, thus the interest in increasing top speed and while never given an official designation by the factory, the crowds dubbed it die Gurke (the cucumber).  The streamlined SSKL won the race and was the first Mercedes-Benz grand prix car to be called a Silberpfeil (silver arrow), the name coined by radio commentator Paul Laven (1902-1979) who was broadcasting trackside for Südwestdeutsche Rundfunkdienst AG (Southwest German Broadcasting Service); he was struck by the unusual appearance although the designer had been inspired by an aircraft fuselage rather than arrows or the vegetable of popular imagination.  The moniker was more flattering than the nickname Weiße Elefanten (white elephant) applied to S & SS which was a reference to their bulk and not a use of the phrase in its usual figurative sense.  The figurative sense came from the Kingdom of Siam (modern-day Thailand) where elephants were beasts of burden, put to work hauling logs in forests or carting other heavy roads but the rare white (albino) elephant was a sacred animal which could not be put to work.  However, the owner was compelled to feed and care for the unproductive creature and the upkeep of an elephant was not cheap; they have large appetites.  According to legend, if some courtier displeased the king, he could expect the present of a white elephant.  A “white elephant” is thus an unwanted possession that though a financial burden, one is “stuck with” and the term is applied the many expensive projects governments around the world seem unable to resist commissioning.

Avus circuit.  Unique in the world, it was the two long straights which determined die Gurke's emphasis on top speed.  Even the gearing was raised (ie a numerically lower differential ratio) because lower engine speeds were valued more than low-speed acceleration which was needed only once a lap.

The size of the S & SS was exaggerated by the unrelieved expanses of white paint (Germany's designated racing color) although despite what is sometimes claimed, Ettore Bugatti’s (1881–1947) famous quip “fastest trucks in the world” was his back-handed compliment not to the German cars but to W. O. Bentley’s (1888–1971) eponymous racers which he judged brutish compared to his svelte machines.  Die Gurke ended up silver only because such had been the rush to complete the build in time for the race, there was time to apply the white paint so it raced in a raw aluminum skin.  Remarkably, in full-race configuration, die Gurke was driven to Avus on public roads, a practice which in many places was tolerated as late as the 1960s.  Its job at Avus done, die Gurke was re-purposed for high-speed tyre testing (its attributes (robust, heavy and fast) ideal for the purpose) before "disappearing" during World War II.  Whether it was broken up for parts or metal re-cycling, spirted away somewhere or destroyed in a bombing raid, nobody knows although it's not impossible conventional bodywork at some point replaced the streamlined panels.  In 2019, Mercedes-Benz unveiled what it described as an "exact replica" of die Gurke, built on an original (1931) chassis.    

1934 Mercedes-Benz W25.

After building the replica Gurke, Mercedes-Benz for the first time subjected it to a wind-tunnel test, finding (broadly in line with expectations) its c_d (coefficient of drag) improved by about a third, recording 0.616 against a standard SSK's 0.914.  By comparison, the purpose-built W25 from 1934 delivered a 0.614 showing how effective Baron Koenig-Fachsenfeld's design had been although by today's standards, the numbers are not of shapes truly "slippery".  Although "pure" racing cars had for years existed, the W25 (Werknummer (works number) 25) was the one which set many elements is what would for a quarter-century in competition be the default template for most grand prix cars and its basic shape and configuration remains recognizable in the last front-engined car to win a Word Championship grand prix in 1960.  The W25 was made possible by generous funding from the new Nazi Party, "prestige projects" always of interest to the propaganda-minded party.  With budgets which dwarfed the competition, immediately the Mercedes-Benz and Auto Unions enjoyed success and the W25 won the newly inaugurated 1935 European Championship.  Ironically, the W25's most famous race was the 1935 German Grand Prix at the Nürburgring, won by the inspired Italian Tazio Nuvolari (1892–1953) in an out-dated and under-powered Alfa-Romeo P3, von Brauchitsch's powerful W25 shredding a rear tyre on the final lap.  However, the Auto Union's chassis design fundamentally was more farsighted; outstanding though the engine was, the W25's platform was, in many ways, eine bessere Gurke (a better cucumber) and because its limitations were inherent, the factory "sat out" most of the 1936 season to develop the W125.

1937 Mercedes-Benz W125.

Along with the dramatic, mid-engined,  V16 Auto Union Type C, the W125 was the most charismatic race car of the "golden age" of 1930s European circuit racing.  When tuned for use on the fastest circuits, the 5.7 litre (346 cubic inch) straight-eight generated over 640 HP and in grand prix racing that number would not be exceeded until the turbocharged engines (first seen in 1977) of the 1980s.  The W125 used a developed version of the W25's 3.4 (205) & 4.3 (262) straight-eights and the factory had assumed this soon would be out-performed by Auto Union's V16s but so successful did the big-bore eight prove the the Mercedes-Benz V16 project was aborted, meaning resources didn't need to be devoted to the body and chassis engineering which would have been required to accommodate the bigger, wider and heavier unit (something which is subsequent decades would doom a Maserati V12 and Porsche's Flat-16.  The W125 was the classic machine of the pre-war "big horsepower" era and if a car travelling at 100 mph (160 km/h) passed a W125 at standstill, the latter could accelerate and pass that car within a mile (1.6 km).

A W125 on the banked Nordschleife (northern ribbon (curve)) at Avus, 1937.  At Avus, the streamlined bodywork was fitted because a track which is 20 km (12 miles) in length but has only four curves puts an untypical premium on top-speed.  The banked turn was demolished in 1967 because increased traffic volumes meant an intersection was needed under the Funkturm (radio tower), tower and today only fragments of the original circuit remain although the lovely art deco race control tower still exists and was for a time used as restaurant.  Atop now sits a Mercedes-Benz three-pointed star rather than the swastika which flew in 1937. 

1938 Mercedes-Benz W154.

On the fastest circuits the streamlined versions of the W125s were geared to attain 330 km/h (205 mph) and 306 km/h (190 mph) often was attained in racing trim.  With streamlined bodywork, there was also the Rekordwagen built for straight-line speed record attempts and one set a mark of 432.7 km/h (268.9 mph), a public-road world speed record that stood until 2017.  Noting the speeds and aware the cars were already too fast for circuits which had been designed for, at most, velocities sometimes 100 km/h (50 mph) less, the governing body changed the rules, limiting the displacement for supercharged machines to 3.0 litres (183 cubic inch), imagining that would slow the pace.  Fast though the rule-makers were, the engineers were quicker still and it wasn't long before the V12 W154 was posting lap-times on a par with the W125 although they did knock a few km/h off the top speeds.  The rule change proved as ineffective in limiting speed as the earlier 750 KG formula which had spawned the W25 & W125.

1939 Mercedes-Benz W165.

An exquisite one-off, the factory built three W165s for the single purpose of contesting the 1939 Tripoli Grand Prix.  Remarkable as it may now sound, there used to be grand prix events in Libya, then a part of Italy's colonial empire.  Anguished at having for years watched the once dominant Alfa Romeos enjoy only the odd (though famous) victory as the German steamroller flattened all competition (something of a harbinger of the Wehrmacht's military successes in 1939-1940), the Italian authorities waited until the last moment before publishing the event's rules, stipulating the use of a voiturette (small car) with a maximum displacement of 1.5 litres  (92 cubic inch).  The rules were designed to suit the Alfa Romeo 158 (Alfetta) and Rome was confident the Germans would have no time to assemble such a machine.  However, knowing Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), still resenting what happened at the Nürburgring in 1935, would not be best pleased were his Axis partner (and vassal) Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) to enjoy even this small victory, the factory scrambled and conjured up the V8-powered (a first for Mercedes-Benz) W165, the trio delivering a "trademark 1-2-3" finish in Tripoli.  As a consolation, with Mercedes-Benz busy building inverted V12s for the Luftwaffe's Messerschmitts, Heinkels and such, an Alfa Romeo won the 1940 Tripoli Grand Prix which would prove the city's last.      

 

1954 Mercedes Benz W196R Strómlinienwagen (literally "streamlined car" but translated usually as "Streamliner".

A curious mix of old (drum brakes, straight-eight engine and swing axles) and new (a desmodromic valve train, fuel injection and aerodynamics developed in a wind-tunnel with the help of engineers then banned from being involved in aviation), the intricacies beneath the skin variously bemused or delighted those who later would come to be called nerds but it was the sensuous curves which attracted most publicity.  Strange though it appeared, it was within the rules and clearly helped deliver stunning speed although the pace did expose some early frailty in road-holding (engineers have since concluded the thing was a generation ahead of tyre technology).  It was one of the prettiest grand prix cars of the post war years and the shape (sometimes called "type Monza", a reference to the Italian circuit with long straights so suited to it) would later much appeal to pop-artist Andy Warhol (1928–1987) who used it in a number of prints.

1954 Mercedes-Benz W196R.  In an indication of how progress accelerated after 1960, compare this W196R with (1) the W25 of 20 years earlier and (2) any grand prix car from 1974, 20 years later. 

However, although pleasing to the eye, the W196R Strómlinienwagen was challenging even for expert drivers and it really was a machine which deserved a de Dion rear suspension rather than the swing axles (on road cars the factory was still building a handful with these as late as 1981 and their fudge of semi-trailing rear arms (the "swing axle when you're not having a swing axle") lasted even longer).  Of more immediate concern to the drivers than any sudden transition to oversteer was that the aluminium skin meant they couldn't see the front wheels so, from their location in the cockpit, it was difficult to judge the position of the extremities, vital in a sport where margins can be fractions of a inch.  After the cars in 1954 returned to Stuttgart having clouted empty oil drums (those and bails of hay was how circuity safety was then done) during an unsuccessful outing to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, a conventional body quickly was crafted and although visually unremarkable, the drivers found it easier to manage and henceforth, the Strómlinienwagen appeared only at Monza.  There was in 1954-1955 no constructor's championship but had there been the W196R would in both years have won and it delivered two successive world driver's championships for Juan Manuel Fangio (1911–1995).  Because of rule changes, the three victories by the W196R Strómlinienwagen remain the only ones in the Formula One World Championship (since 1950) by a car with enveloping bodywork.

Backwoodsman

Backwoodsman (pronounced bak-woodz-muhn)

(1) A person living in or coming from the backwoods, or a remote or unsettled area (backwoodswoman a later back-formation).

(2) A person of uncouth manners, rustic behavior or speech etc.

(3) In historic UK use, a peer (member of the House of Lords) who rarely attends the chamber.

1700-1710: An Americanism, the construct being backwoods ((1) partly or wholly uncleared forest (especially in North America use) and (2) a remote or sparsely inhabited region (especially in North America use); away from large human settlements and the influence of modern life) + -man.  The related terms included “hinterlander”, “mountain man” & “woodsman” and while the history of use meant they evolved to be not wholly without implied meaning, in various places a number of “loaded” words and phrases came to be used as a way of disparaging rural dwellers including country bumpkin, boor, clodhopper, hick, rube, rustic, yokel, country boy (or country girl), hayseed, clod, hodge, swain, country cousin, son of the soil, lubber, lummox, galoot, mountainmen & lunk.  Backwoodsman is a noun; the noun plural is backwoodsmen.

Back was from the Middle English bak, from the Old English bæc (rear part of the body), from the Proto-West Germanic bak, from the Proto-Germanic baką & bakam, possibly from the primitive Indo-European bhago- (to bend; to curve) and may be compared with the Middle Low German bak (back), from the Old Saxon bak, the West Frisian bekling (chair back), the Old High German bah, and the Swedish and Norwegian bak.  It was cognate with the German Bache (sow (adult female hog)).  Wood was from the Middle English wode, from the Old English wudu & widu (wood, forest, grove; tree; timber), from the Proto-West Germanic widu, from the Proto-Germanic widuz (wood), from the primitive Indo-European hweydh- (to separate).  It was cognate with the Dutch wede (wood, twig), the Middle High German wite (wood), the Danish ved (wood), the Swedish ved (firewood), the Icelandic viður (wood) and additional cognates include the Irish fiodh (a wood; tree), the Irish fid (tree) and the Welsh gwŷdd (trees), all from the Proto-Celtic widus (wood).  The word was unrelated to the Dutch woud (forest), and the German Wald (forest).  Man was from the Middle English man, from the Old English mann (human being, person, man), from the Proto-West Germanic mann, from the Proto-Germanic mann (human being, man), probably from the primitive Indo-European mon- (man) (men having the meaning “mind”); a doublet of manu.  The specific sense of “adult male of the human race” (distinguished from a woman or boy) was known in the Old English by circa 1000.   Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late in the thirteenth century, replaced by mann and increasingly man.  Man also was in Old English as an indefinite pronoun (one, people, they) and used generically for "the human race, mankind" by circa 1200.  It was cognate with the West Frisian man, the Dutch man, the German Mann (man), the Norwegian mann (man), the Old Swedish maþer (man), the Swedish man, the Russian муж (muž) (husband, male person), the Avestan manš, the Sanskrit मनु (manu) (human being), the Urdu مانس‎ and Hindi मानस (mānas).  Although often thought a modern adoption, use as a word of familiar address, originally often implying impatience is attested as early as circa 1400, hence probably its use as an interjection of surprise or emphasis since Middle English.  It became especially popular from the early twentieth century.

Types de pionniers, de bouviers et d indians de Benton (Montana) (pioneers, drovers and Indians from Benton, Montana).  A late nineteenth century engraving after the drawing by Émile-Antoine Bayard (1837–1891), depicting the voyage from Washington to San Francisco, in 1868, by French engineer & geologist Louis Laurent (1830-1886), published in Le tour du monde (Hachette edition, 1874), edited by Édouard Charton (1807–1890).  When reproduced for sale in the US (right), the title Backwoodsmen and Indians (in the sense of “Native Americans” was sometimes used.

In the US, “backwoodsman” was a term used to describe those living remotely and it could be used neutrally or, by city-dwellers, as a form of disparagement.  It spread to the UK but didn’t become widely used until the dispute between the Conservative & Unionist Party (the Tories) opposition and the new Liberal government over certain budget measures, the squabble culminating in the “constitutional crisis” of 1911 and the passage of the Parliament Act which removed from the non-elected House of Lords the power permanently to block legislation passed by the (then sort of) democratically elected House of Commons.  When the Lords, defying convention, voted to reject the government’s budget, the prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer (the finance minister or treasurer) decided what was needed was constitutional reform, ending or at least severely restricting the right of their lordships to frustrate a government with a majority in the Commons.

HH Asquith, London, 1911.

The significance of the “backwoodmen” in the constitutional crisis was that they were the peers (members of the House of Lords, almost all of who had inherited their title and the right to sit in the parliament’s upper house, some there thus because of some great service (or in some cases corrupt act) of a ancestor possibly centuries earlier) who rarely, if ever attended sessions.  They gained their name by virtue of being country gentlemen and by virtue of their inherent bias for the Tory cause, they provided a built-in majority for the party and should ever the need arise, they could be summoned to vote.  That need arose during the crisis because the prime-minister (HH Asquith (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916) had threatened to secure George V’s (1865–1936; King of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India 1910-1936) acquiescence to the creation of hundreds of Liberal Party aligned peers thereby overwhelming the Tory majority, a move which contained the implied threat of the new crop being used in an act of “political suicide”: voting to abolish the Lords.  That might have seemed scaremongery but in the decades ahead, elsewhere in the empire, upper houses would do exactly that.

Backwoodsperson Lindsay Lohan in the woods in Albus Lumen top & skirt from Matches Fashion with Missoni earrings & choker from Ounass, Emirates Woman magazine, May 2018.

As the parliamentary battle-lines were drawn, the Tories in the Lords coalesced into two factions: the “ditchers” and “hedgers”.  The ditchers were the “hardliners”, the absolutists prepared (metaphorically) to “die in the last ditch” rather than accede to any reform which constrained their power.  The ditchers had a world view which included the aristocracy being the natural and essential class to govern the nation.  The hedgers were the age’s version of the “power-realists”, pragmatists who may not have approved of reform but could sniff the winds of political change blowing through Westminster’s oak-panelled corridors, winds that were turning to gusts, blowing in moths already nibbling at the ermine.  Their view was the threatened reform was the lesser of two evils and it was better to concede a little now than later lose a lot more.

David Lloyd George, London, 1907.

Compromise was anathema to the ditchers who mobilized the network of backwoodsman peers, summoning them to London to vote which would have been a experience for some who had not for decades cat their eyes upon the the houses of parliament, let alone sat in the place.  The ditchers thought they had the numbers and at some points in the struggle they almost certainly did but when the news circulated the king had agreed to created hundreds of new barons, some of the ditchers, appalled at the thought their  exclusive circles would be diluted by an infusion of miners, manufacturers and motor car salesmen, left their ditch for the hedge.  When the moment arrived, the Parliament Act (1911) was passed by 131 votes to 114, the hundreds of abstentions an indication of how many had decided to “sit on the hedge”.  After the Parliament Act, the Lords could no longer veto all but the most fundamental constitutional acts and their power was restricted to delaying implementation for two years (in 1949 reduced to six months).  One Liberal actually pleased the need for the hundreds of new peers had never arisen was David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922), then chancellor of the exchequer.  Lloyd George was well acquainted with the character of men likely to be among the hundreds of new barons and viewed them with some distaste, admitting to the Tory leader of the opposition (Arthur Balfour (1848–1930; UK Prime Minister 1902-1905)) that like him he had no desire to see the creation happen: “…looking into the future, I know that our glorified grocers will be more hostile to social reform than your Backwoodsmen.”  Lloyd George appreciated the backwoodsmen might have some sense of noblesse oblige but he knew the way the “jumped up grocers” treated the working class in their mines, mills and factories.

Exchequer

Exchequer (pronounced eks-chek-er or iks-chek-er)

(1) A treasury, as of a state or nation.

(2) The governmental department in charge of the public revenues (often initial capital letter).

(3) A now disestablished English office administering the royal revenues and determining all cases affecting them.

(4) An ancient English common-law court of civil jurisdiction in which cases affecting the revenues of the crown were tried, now merged in the King's Bench Division of the High Court.  It was usually styled as the Court of Exchequer.

(5) Informal slang for one’s personal finances.

1250-1300: From Middle English escheker and eschequier, borrowed from the Anglo-French escheker and eschekier, derived from the Old French eschequier and escheccheck (chessboard, counting table).  Source was the Medieval Latin scaccarium (chess board).  The meaning with which it’s now most associated (government finances), emerged under the Norman kings of England, the basis the design of the cloth (divided in squares), covering the tables on which accounts of revenue were reckoned with counters; these reminded all who saw them of a chess board and the name was adopted.  The English respelling with an -x- was because of the erroneous medieval belief that it originally was a Latin ex- word (the old alternative spelling exchecker is long obsolete).  The most common modern use is the UK office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, equivalent variously to finance ministers or treasurers in other systems.  Confusingly for those not political junkies, the UK's prime-minister is formerly styled First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor, the Second Lord.  Exchequer is a noun & verb; the noun plural is exchequers.  When used to refer to an established institution (such as the UK's department of treasury), it's correct to use an initial capital.

Court of Exchequer Chamber

Although its origins date from the fourteenth century, it was the statute of 1585 which established the Court of Exchequer Chamber in essentially the form it would remain until its abolition by the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875 when it was absorbed into the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.  Always an appellate court for common law civil actions, the court heard references from the King's Bench, the Court of Exchequer and, from 1830, directly rather than indirectly from the Court of Common Pleas.  It was a classic English appeal court in that it was constituted by four judges belonging to the two courts that had been uninvolved at first instance although, in matters of especial importance, twelve common law judges, four from each division below, sitting in Exchequer Chamber, might be asked to determine a point of law, the matter being referred by the court hearing the case rather than the parties.  Appeals from its judgments were, by leave, to the House of Lords but, because the Exchequer Chamber was regarded as a specialist and authoritative body, this was rare before the nineteenth century and rules of judgment by the Chamber were considered definitive statements of the law.

Court of Exchequer (1808) by William Henry Pyne (1769-1843).

Most appeals to the chamber were from the Exchequer of Pleas or Court of Exchequer, a court which dealt with matters of equity and expanded in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries because the doing business in the Court of Chancery was a slow and expensive business.  In the manner of the evolution of the English courts, the Exchequer's jurisdiction, at various times, was common law, equity, or both, the prevailing trend being for discretionary areas of its jurisdiction to expand.  By the nineteenth century, Exchequer and Chancery enjoyed similar jurisdictions and with the Judicature Acts, the Exchequer was formally dissolved as a judicial body by an Order in Council of 16 December 1880.

The style of cloth spread across the tables of the courts of Exchequer has proved durable in fashion, the bold pattern working especially well with stark color contrasts, white with black, red, purple or navy blue the most popular combinations.  The gingham Macy midi dress (left) is a classic example but Lindsay Lohan (right) demonstrates how the look can be achieved using one’s own skin, using a Black Pash shirt & Alaia skirt combo (the t-strap sandals were by Miu Miu but an opportunity was missed by not adding a sympathetic clutch purse), The World's First Fabulous Fund Fair in aid of The Naked Heart Foundation, The Roundhouse, London, February 2015.

Prerogative

Prerogative (pronounced pri-rog-uh-tiv)

(1) An exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like; having a hereditary or official right or privilege.

(2) A right, privilege, etc, limited to a specific person or to persons of a particular category.

(3) A power, immunity, or the like restricted to a sovereign government or its representative.

(4) Characterized by lawless state actions (refers to the prerogative state)

(5) Precedence (obsolete except in the legal sense of the hierarchy of rights).

(6) A property, attribute or ability which gives one a superiority or advantage over others; an inherent (though not necessarily unique) advantage or privilege; a talent.

(7) In constitutional law, a right or power exclusive to a head of state (often derived from the original powers of a monarch) or their nominee exercising delegated authority, especially the powers to appoint or dismiss executive governments.

1350-1400: From the Anglo-Norman noun prerogatif, from the Old French prerogative, from the Latin praerogātīva (previous verdict; claim, privilege), noun use of the feminine singular of praerogātīvus (having first vote; privileged), in Anglo-Latin as prerogativa from late thirteenth century.  The origin lay in a statute in the civil law of Ancient Roman which granted precedence to the tribus, centuria (an assembly of one-hundred voters who, by lot, voted first in the Roman comita).  The law guaranteed them a praerogātīvus (chosen to vote first) derived from praerogere (ask before others).  The construct of praerogere was prae (before) + rogare (to ask, ask a favor), apparently a figurative use of a primitive Indo-European verb meaning literally "to stretch out (the hand)" from the root reg- (move in a straight line).  In Middle English, the meaning "an innate faculty or property which especially distinguishes someone or something" was added.  The alternative spelling prærogative is long obsolete.  Prerogative is a noun & adjective, prerogatived is an adjective and prerogatively is an adverb; the noun plural is prerogatives.

In English law, a court classified as “a prerogative court” was one through which the discretionary powers, privileges, and legal immunities reserved to the sovereign could be exercised.  The best known of these courts was the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Chancery and the Court of the Star Chamber (the latter one of those institutions formed to rectify injustice but which was later the source of much; the Court of the Star Chamber may be used as a case-study explaining the phrase: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”).  In time, clashes between the prerogative courts and common law courts became something of a proxy-theatre in the contest between the king and parliament.  The way that worked out was that the ancient (essentially personal) prerogative rights of the monarch weren’t abolished but rather exercised by parliament or institutions (including courts) to which the powers were delegated.  Whether any prerogative power remains in the hands of the sovereign to be used in “extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances” remains a matter of debate.  There were also ecclesiastical prerogative courts under the authority of the archbishops of Canterbury and York but they existed only to handle probate matters in cases where estates beyond a certain defined value were spread between the two dioceses but they also handled many wills of those who died in colonial or other overseas service.  As part of the great reforms of the late nineteenth century undertaken in the Judicature Acts (1873-1899) the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical prerogative moved to the common law courts, being finally vested in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice.

In English law, the still sometimes invoked prerogative writ (the best known of which were habeas corpus (from the Latin habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (usually translated as “bring up the body (ie the prisoner))), a demand a prisoner being held by an organ of the state be brought before a court to determine whether there was lawful authority for the detention) and mandamus (from the Latin mandāmus (we command)), an order issued by a higher court to compel or to direct a lower court or a government officer correctly to perform mandatory duties) was a class of six orders available to the crown for the purpose of directing the action of an organ of government (including courts, officials or statutory bodies).  The name was derived from the authority these exercised being traceable ultimately to the discretionary prerogative & extraordinary power of the monarch and the principle remains in use in many common law jurisdictions which evolved from the old British Empire, notably those of the Raj of colonial India.

The woman's prerogative

For a man incautiously to use the phrase “a woman's prerogative”, the risk would be “cancellation” (or worse) although it’s probably still acceptable if there’s a layer of irony.  The phrase is a clipping of the full: “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind”, the implication being women have the right to change their minds or make decisions based on their own preferences and need provide no explanation or justification.  Wise men (and the pussy-whipped) accept this without demur.  It is of course a reflection of a cultural stereotype and seems to have come into use in the mid-nineteenth century, an era in which gender roles were more rigidly defined and women were thought to be more capricious or whimsical in their actions.  However, in law, the “woman's prerogative” was once enforceable, granting them rights not available to men, a most unusual development in Western jurisprudence.

Well into the twentieth century, it was legal orthodoxy in common law jurisdictions for an offer of marriage to be enforceable under the rules of contract law.  While courts didn’t go as far as ordering “specific performance” of the contract (ie forcing an unwilling party to marry someone), they would award damages on the basis of a “breach of promise”, provided it could be adduced that three of the four essential elements of a contract existed: (1) offer, (2) certainty of terms and (3) acceptance.  The fourth component: (4) consideration (ie payment), wasn’t mentioned because it was assumed to be implicit in the nature of the exchange; a kind of “deferred payment” as it were.  It was one of those rarities in common law where things operated wholly in favor of women in that they could sue a man who changed his mind while they were free to break-off an engagement without fear of legal consequences though there could be social and familial disapprobation.  Throughout the English-speaking world, the breach of promise tort in marriage matters has almost wholly been abolished, remaining on the books in the a handful of US states (not all of which lie south of the Mason-Dixon Line) but even where it exists it’s now a rare action and one likely to succeed only in exceptional circumstances or where a particularly fragrant plaintiff manages to charm a particularly sympathetic judge.

The royal prerogative and the reserve powers of the crown

The royal prerogative is the body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity and the means by which (some of) the executive powers of government are exercised in the governance of the state.  These powers are recognized in common law (and in some civil law) jurisdictions are held to vest wholly in the sovereign alone, even if exercised through either appointees (of which governors, governors-general & viceroys are the best-known) constitutional government.  In the narrowest sense of technical theory, the recognition of the personal powers of a sovereign exists in most common law systems where the concept is relevant but has long since mostly been reduced to legal fiction and in most constitutional monarchies, almost all individual prerogatives have been abolished by parliaments.  Some republican heads of state also possess similar powers but they tend to be constitutionally defined and subject to checks and balances.  A notable exception to this is a US president’s un-trammeled right to grant pardons to those convicted of offences under federal law and that’s interesting because it’s the only power in the US Constitution not subject to a check or balance.  A US president thus personally continues to exercise a prerogative in a way a British monarch (or their appointees as governors & governors-general), from whom the power is derived, no longer can.

In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch (at least in theory and the role of the Church needs also to be noted) acting alone but after the Magna Carta (1215, from the Medieval Latin Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms) which divided power among the ruling class, there had to be sought the consent of others and this ultimately became parliamentary consent granted to an executive (exercising powers derived from the absolute authority of the monarch) responsible to the parliament.  This took centuries to evolve and eventually meant, in practical terms, the king got the money he needed for his wars and other ventures in exchange for the parliament getting his signature to pass the laws they wanted.

Watched by the courtiers Lord Mulgrave & Lord Morpeth, Lord Melbourne serves King William IV a blackbird pie (1836), lithograph with watercolour by John Doyle (1797-1868), Welcome Collection, London.  The text is a re-arranged selection of lines from the eighteenth century English nursery rhyme “Sing a Song of Sixpence” and reads: “Sing a song of six pence a bag full of rye, four and twenty black birds baked in a pie, when the pie was opened, the birds began to sing, was not this a pretty dish to set before a king.”  The blackbirds sing “Justice for Scotland!” and “No tithes!”, controversial issues of the age.  Nineteenth century cartoonists were sometimes more harsh in their treatment of politicians and royalty. 

In Australia, the royal prerogative is limited (but not defined) by the constitution and those powers which vest a monarch’s authority in a governor-general don’t alter the nature of the prerogative, only its detail; the prerogative is exercised by the governor-general but only on the advice of “their” ministers.  The most obvious exception to this is the reserve power of the monarch (and there are those who doubt whether this still exists in the UK) to dismiss a government enjoying the confidence of the lower house of parliament.  In the UK, it’s not been done since William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom 1830-1837) dismissed Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1834 & 1835–1841) in 1834 (some dispute that, saying it was more of a gentleman’s agreement and the last termination was actually that of Lord North (1732–1792; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1770-1782) by George III (1738–1820) King of Great Britain 1760-1820) in 1782) but Australia has seen two twentieth-century sackings; that in 1932 of NSW premier Jack Lang (1876–1975; Premier of New South Wales 1925-1927 & 1930-1932) by Governor Sir Philip Game (1876–1961; Governor of NSW 1930-1935) and, in 1975, when governor-general Sir John Kerr (1914–1991; Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977) sundered Gough Whitlam’s (1916–2014; Prime Minister of Australia 1972-1975) commission.

Dr HV Evatt in his office at the United Nations, New York, 1949.

The 1975 business provoked much academic discussion of the reserve powers but the most lucid read remains Dr HV Evatt’s (1894–1965; ALP leader 1951-1960) book from decades earlier: The King and His Dominion Governors (1936).  Evatt’s volume was published a hundred odd-years after William IV sacked Melbourne and is useful because in that century there had been more than a few disputes about reserve powers.  Evatt’s central point was that the powers exist but proper rules by which they may be exercised are by no means clear.  The legal power is vested in the governor as the representative of the monarch and when it may properly be used depends on usage and convention.  It seems therefore scarcely possible to say confidently of any case when the Crown has intervened that its intervention was or was not correct for the only standard of correctness in each episode is its consistency with episodes of a similar character, none of which in themselves lay down any principle in law.  Further, Evatt notes, in looking to precedent, support for almost any view can be found in the authorities.  Lofty theoretical purity is also not helpful.  The view the sovereign automatically acts in all matters in accordance with the advice of his ministers rests entirely upon assertion and, Evatt observed, the reserve powers are still, on occasion, properly exercisable and that the Sovereign or his representative may have to exercise a real discretion.  Given that, it really might be impossible that the prerogative could be codified in a document which envisages all possible political or other circumstances.  Evatt nevertheless argued the principles which should guide a sovereign should be defined and made clear by statute.

Nor is practical political reality all that much help, however satisfactory an outcome may prove.  What the exercise of the reserve powers, both in 1932 and 1975, did was enable impasses described, however erroneously as constitutional crises to be resolved by an election, rather than other means.  The result of an election however does not conclude the matter for the correctness of the sovereign's action is not measured by his success as a prophet, any post-facto endorsement by the electorate having not even an indirect bearing on the abstract question of constitutionality.

Although variously a high court judge, attorney-general, foreign minister, opposition leader and Chief Justice of NSW, all Dr Evatt asked for on his gravestone was President of the United Nations, noting his service as president of the general assembly (1948-1949).

Evatt’s core argument therefore was reserve powers should be subject to the normal and natural process of analysis, definition and reduction to the rules of positive law, which, by 1936, had in some places been done.  Evatt considered section 33 (10) of the Western Nigerian constitution which codified things thus: The Governor shall not remove the Premier from office unless it appears to him that the Premier no longer commands the support or a majority of the members of the House of Assembly.  Other sections went on to detail the mechanisms of the exercise of the power, thereby attempting to do exactly what Evatt suggests.  However, the Nigerian example cited by Evatt did not prove a solution because the exercise of the power under the constitution became in 1962 a matter of dispute and the case proceeded though the courts, finally ending up before the Privy Council as Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963 AC 614), an indication even the most explicit codification can remain something imperfect.