Chamber

Chamber (pronounced cheym-ber)

(1) A room, usually private, in a house or apartment, especially a bedroom (now archaic or poetic).

(2) A reception room or audience room in an official residence, palace, etc.

(3) The meeting hall of a legislative or other assembly.

(4) In law, a place where a judge hears matters not requiring action in open court.

(5) In England, the quarters or rooms that lawyers use to consult with their clients, especially in the Inns of Court.

(6) A legislative, judicial, or other like body.

(7) An organization of individuals or companies for a specified purpose.

(8) The place where the moneys due a government are received and kept; a treasury or chamberlain's office (obsolete).

(9) As chamberlet, a small chamber.

(10) Of or relating to, or performing chamber music.

(11) To put or enclose in, or as in, a chamber.

(12) To provide with a chamber.

(13) The space between two gates of the locks of a canal, dry dock, etc

(14) An enclosure for a cartridge in the cylinder of a revolver or for a shell in the breech of a cannon.

(15) An enclosed space, compartment or cavity; the smallest chamber in a cave.

1175-1225: From the Middle English chamber (a room in a (usually private) house) from the eleventh century Old French chambre (room, chamber, apartment), derived from the Late Latin camera (a chamber, room), variant of camara (vaulted room) from the Ancient Greek kamára.  In an interesting linguistic twist, the Old French and Middle English words were also used alone and in combinations to form words for "latrine, privy" from the idea of the "bedroom utensil for containing urine".  The word in the fourteenth century was adopted for use in to anatomy in the sense of "an enclosed space in a body" and this was extended to machinery after 1769, the use in gunnery or ballistics meaning  "part of the bore in which the charge is placed" dating from the 1620s.  The familiar use to refer to the rooms where legislative bodies assemble (ie upper & lower chambers) has been in use since circa 1400.  Chamber music dates from 1789; the distinction being it described a type of music meant to be performed in private rooms instead of public halls.  Chamber-lye, disturbingly to modern ears, meant "urine used as a detergent" and dates from the 1570s and the obviously related chamber-pot (also chamberpot) (vessel for urine used in bedrooms) came into use a decade earlier.  A chambermaid was (1) a female servant who dresses a lady and waits on her in her bedchamber and (2) a woman who makes beds and cleans rooms in a private house, palace or inn, a form which emerged in the 1580s and obviously derived from bedchamber (also bed-chamber) (a room for sleep or repose) which had been in use since the mid-fourteenth century.  Bedchamber is now archaic and used only in relation to royalty (an then mostly in historic reference), expensive hotels and hopeful real-estate salespeople.  The verb chamber was in the late fourteenth century derived from the noun and was used in the sense of (1) to restrain, shut up as in a chamber and (2) to furnish with a chamber" (implied in chambered); the related form was chambering.  The adjective chambered (divided into chambers) was from the same era and was the past-participle adjective the verb.  The famous reference to nautilus shells dates from 1819.  Chamber & chambering are nouns & verbs, chamberful & chamberer are nouns, chambered is a verb & adjective, chamberless & chamberlike are adjectives; the noun plural is chambers.

The cult of the combustion chamber.

In an ICE (internal combustion engine), the combustion chamber is the (temporarily) sealed space in which a quantity of fuel and air is compressed and then ignited (ie the mix is combusted), the energy released moving a piston or rotor, that energy subsequently transferred by a series of mechanical connections so the movement (transferred energy) can be applied to some purpose.  All else being equal, the larger the chamber and the more of them, the more energy can be produced, expressed usually as power or torque.  In an ICE, these ignitions happen thousands of times a second so the transfer of energy from the fuel to a mechanical action can be considerable.  Combustion chamber design has for well over a century occupied the time of engineers and a number of “standard types” emerged including the “wedge”, “hemi” “poly” and “swirl”.  For those designing a device for a single purpose the task can be a relatively simple quest for optimal efficiency (for short-duration purposes such as drag or sprint racing when all that matters is power & torque) whereas if there are a number of parameters it’s a matter of balancing out competing specific efficiencies (in endurance racing, economy matters as well as power & torque).  In mass production units for general sale, as well as striking a balance between output and economy, engineers also have to factor in the cost & ease of manufacture as well as (for the last 60-odd years) the toxicity of emissions.

Smith & Wesson Model 648 .22 WMR Revolver.  In a revolver, the bullets are housed in chambers (typically between 5 & 10) in the revolving cylinder.

Popular in the “female market” (in the US, a sector for some years exhibiting consistent growth) and something of a “sweet spot” for small-game-hunting and plinking (recreational target shooting), the .22 Magnum cartridge is suitable for both handguns and long-arms; inherently an accurate cartridge, the ballistics out of a 6-inch (150 mm) barrel handgun are at least equal to those of a 22 LR out of a 24-inch (610 mm) barrel rifle.  Smith & Wesson’s 648 was produced in runs between 1989-1996 and 2003-2005, the re-introduction in 2020 much welcomed.  The most recent edition uses a stainless steel version of S&W’s 6-inch K-Frame barrel with an 8-chamber cylinder.

The Court of Star Chamber

The former Court of Star Chamber (1836), engraving by unknown artist, published in Edward Walford’s (1823-1897) Old & New London (Volume 3, 1881), reproducing a visual record of the historic chamber shortly before it was demolished.

Named for the star pattern on the ceiling of the room in Westminster Palace where sittings were convened, the Court of Star Chamber (known almost always as the Star Chamber), was an English law court that operated in parallel with the common-law courts although its authority was drawn directly from the king's sovereign power and privileges; it was not bound by the common law or legal precedent.  Created originally to ensure the enforcement of laws against the socially and politically well-connected (those "ordinary" courts often for whatever reason hesitant to convict "the rich"), the Star Chamber evolved from the medieval King's Council.  There had been a tradition of the king presiding over a court composed of his Privy Counsellors and in 1487, under the supervision of Henry VII (1457–1509; King of England 1485-1509 and the first Tudor king), the Court of Star Chamber was established as a judicial body separate from the council (analogous with the way by the nineteenth century the courts of final appeal referred to as (1) the House of Lords and (2) the Privy Council had become specialized bodies with a small, judicially qualified membership while retaining the existing names).  The original rationale was for the Star Chamber to (1) oversee the lower courts, (2) act as a court of appeal and (3) hear petitions seeking redress addressed to the king.  Initially, the court heard cases only on appeal, but Henry VIII's (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547) chancellor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1473–1530; Lord High Chancellor of England 1515-1529) encouraged suitors directly to lodge writs of appeal and not await verdicts from the common-law courts (a concept that might have appeal for some modern-day litigants and lawyers).  Although most of the cases heard involved property rights, trade, government administration and public corruption, the Tudors especially were concerned with public disorder and Cardinal Wolsey referred matters involving forgery, fraud, perjury, riot, slander, and anything else he considered a breach of the peace. Following the Reformation, the Star Chamber was used (and much misused) to punish religious dissenters.

Procedurally the Star Chamber would begin a case with a petition or with information brought to the attention of the judges and depositions would be taken to discover the facts.  Accused parties could be put on oath to respond to the charges and answer detailed questions. No juries were used; members of the court decided whether to hear cases, passed verdicts and assigned punishments.  Structurally, the court was thus a hybrid with influences from the common law, Roman civil law, developments in Chancery (equity) law and the Court of Exchequer.  Interestingly, the court did not have capital jurisdiction so instead declared its choice of punishment was wholly arbitrary and not at all governed by precedent, guidelines or laws, judges able to choose (indeed even invent) the punishment(s) they felt most appropriate to the crime or criminal and on the bench there were some imaginative folk.  The sentences handed down included fines, time in the pillory (stocks), whipping, branding, mutilation or imprisonment for any length of time.  In Australia, there are critics of the NSW (New South Wales) ICAC (Independent Commission against corruption) who compare its operations with the Star Chamber; in this they’re only partially correct in that there are some procedural similarities but the comparison is not valid regarding punishments.

Tucked up: Lindsay Lohan in her bedchamber under tufted bedhead.

The Star Chamber offered an expeditious resolution to legal conflicts. It was popular with the Tudors because quickly it could enforce the law (or the will of the king when the letter of the law proved tiresome) when other courts were slow or tainted by corruption.  In royal circles it was valued because it could be relied upon to deliver "satisfactory remedies" in cases  where the common law restricted punishments able to be inflicted or failed to address specific infractions.  These days, some might call it "judicially efficient".  Under the Tudors, Star Chamber hearings were held in public, proceedings and verdicts subject to inspection, that alone inducing most judges to act with reason and try to deliver fair justice; it was in the seventeenth century, the court evolved into something secretive and corrupt, the Stuarts using the court to enforce their royal proclamations (ancestor of the "executive order" now much associated with the White House), holding sessions in secret and allowing no appeals.  Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1625-1649) saw the court as a substitute for Parliament when he tried to govern without calling the legislature into session and resentment grew as the Stuarts used the court to prosecute members of the nobility who otherwise would not be subject to prosecution in common-law courts.  The Long Parliament in 1641 abolished the Star Chamber and, except in historic references, the term "star chamber" is now almost always pejorative and used to describe social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the powers wielded (in political science, the doctrine of separation of powers is held to be the most effective means to prevent abuse of power by the state; at its most simple, it means the executive can no longer in individual cases impose the sanctions of criminal law, a function belonging exclusively to the courts.  The verbal shorthand for the concept is "judicial independence".

Not often was the Court of Star Chamber a cause for mirth but William Shakespeare (1564–1616) found a way in The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), Justice Shallow in Act 1, Scene 1 saying: “Sir Hugh, persuade me not; I will make a Star-chamber matter of it: if he were twenty Sir John Falstaffs, he shall not abuse Robert Shallow, esquire.”  The context was the carefully named Justice Shallow, an arrogant, pompous provincial magistrate from Gloucestershire, was furious because Sir John Falstaff and his followers had insulted and robbed him and his cousin.  That this petty crime was not the sort of thing to come before the Star Chamber was the joke, showing Shallow’s puffed-up sense of self-importance and legal pedantry.  The Court of Star Chamber was a classic example of an institution that “seemed a good idea at the time” that came, through a process of “mission creep” later to be "re-purposed" and misused to the extent it became something worse than the problems it was created to solve.  The early records are sketchy so the origins are obscure but the critical point was that despite the creation of several layers of courts and the evolution of the English common law, no sovereign ever surrendered their “supreme jurisdiction” and by the thirteenth century, when sessions of the King's Council became regular (and functionally distinct from parliament), this residual supreme jurisdiction continued to be exercised by the King in council.  What happened was that as the common law administered by the courts introduced (by the operation of precedent) a certain predictability, the more erratic judgments handed down by the council (a body with unlimited jurisdiction) resulted in an increasing volume of complaints but, such was the state of constitutional development (essentially the balance of power between the king and parliament), successive parliaments had little success in effecting reforms.

Sir Edward Coke (published 1792), line engraving by Thomas Trotter (circa 1750-1803), after a portrait by Cornelius Johnson (Cornelius Janssen van Ceulen, 1593-1661), published by publisher & bookseller Thomas Cadell the Elder (1742-1802), National Portrait Gallery, London.

As late as the nineteenth century, historians were still writing of the Star Chamber (after operating for a half-century odd) “ceasing to exist” towards the end of the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) with the court’s powers reverting to the Council.  The extant records are contradictory but whatever the terminology used, it would seem a deliberative body at least “Star Chamber-like” sat concurrently with the Council and, by whatever processes, the two bodies were again separate institutions late in the reign of Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603).  The murkiness seems to stem from the Act of 1540 including the phrase “in the Star Chamber or elsewhere” and this may explain why it became difficult to determine a clear distinction between the duties of the Privy Council and those of the Star Chamber; essentially, it wasn’t clear in what capacity members were sitting and there’s little to suggest they made jurisdictional distinctions.

The uncertainty is illustrated in the writings of eminent jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634 Chief Justice of the King's Bench 1613–1616) who observed the Star Chamber “is (or may be) compounded of three several councils: (1) the Lords and others of the Privy Council; (2) the judges of either bench and the barons of the Exchequer; (3) the Lords of Parliament, who are not, however, standing judges of the court.”  Sir Edward usually is regarded as authoritative but William Hudson (circa 1577-1935), an advocate who practiced before the court, in 1621 claimed all peers had the right of sitting in the court and it’s not clear when that right was extinguished but definitely the privilege did not exist late in the seventeenth century.  Hudson’s Treatise of the court of Star Chamber (1621) was a quite strident defence of the Star Chamber, a response to complaints about the body’s haphazard ways with the records of pleadings and judgements.  Critics compared the court’s inconsistent, unstructured approach with the at least semi-codified methods by then adopted by Westminster’s other courts and found a “lack of diligence”, claiming the Star Chamber was no “settled, ordinary court of justice”, nor a “court of ordinary justice ever tied to form” but effectively “a committee for such great causes as it pleased the king”.  Hudson did not deny the administrative neglect but observed it was something new, the court in former times a model of record-keeping.  By the time Parliament abolished the Star Chamber, one of the distinctions MPs drew between it and what they deemed the “ordinary, legitimate courts of common law” was precisely that the former had no proper record whereas the latter did.

The Court of Star Chamber, Westminster (undated), lithograph by unknown artist, The National and Domestic History of England (circa 1890) by William Hickman Smith Aubrey (1858-1916).

That grumble really was a product of how “records” was defined.  The court produced an abundance of material, just not in the predictable, structured form used by other courts, a form that would come to be accepted as the proceedings of a “court of record” (ancestor of the modern law report).  If judged by volume alone, the Star Chamber certainly was productive, its documents including lengthy bills in the form of petitions through to rejoinders, demurrers, interrogatories, and depositions.  In a modern phrase, that was "a lot of data but not much information", lawyers finding it difficult to “mine” all this stuff for findings or facts, let alone incontrovertible determinations.  As an outgrowth of the authority of the sovereign, the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber was as vague as its constitution, Hudson making the point it was “impossible to define” without offending the supporters of “the prerogative” by a limitation of its powers, or the advocates by attributing to it “an excessive latitude”.  Given that, it’s hardly surprising the jurisdiction remained effectively close to unlimited and the vista was extraordinary, encompassing from time-to-time riots, murder, forgery, felony, perjury, fraud, libel and slander, duels and acts tending to treason, as well as of some civil matters, such as disputes about land between great men and corporations, disputes between English and foreign merchants, and testamentary cases.  It can be understood only as analogous to a delegation of the powers of an absolute monarch dispensing justice from his throne and that was of course the body's medieval root.  As Hudson put it: “All offences may be here examined and punished if the King will.”  Not constrained by the limitations and guideposts of the common law, Hudson’s critique was summed-up by a later reviewer as: “Its procedure was not according to the Common Law; it dispensed with the encumbrance of a jury; it could proceed on rumour alone; it could apply torture; it could inflict any penalty but death.”

The paradox of such an institution was that it was thus “admirably calculated to be the support of order against anarchy, or of despotism against individual and national liberty.”  So it proved, operating in the former light under the Stuarts and in the latter under the Tudors, shifting from “a tribunal constantly resorted to as a resource against the ignorance or prejudices of a country jury” where, in such investigations “it showed itself intelligent and impartial.”  Under the Stuarts, the Star Chamber became “the great engine of the royal tyranny” with “hateful and excessive punishments inflicted on those brought it judges”.  Amusingly, despite that perception, even as late as 1629 the Barons of the Exchequer felt moved to observe the Star Chamber was “one of the most high and honourable courts of justice.”  Although in 1641 abolished by an act of parliament, twenty years later the "gap in the judicial market" was considered by a committee of the House of Lords, their lordships reporting “that it was fit for the good of the nation that there be a court of like nature to the Star Chamber.”  The mood had however shifted and the matter wasn’t pursued.

Privy

Privy (pronounced priv-ee)

(1) Participating in the knowledge of something private or secret (usually as the phrase “privy to”).

(2) Private; assigned to private uses; exclusive; not public; one's own.

(3) Belonging or pertaining to some particular person (in or with reference to constitutional law, especially as applied to a sovereign).

(4) Secret, concealed, hidden, or secluded; acting or done in secret (archaic).

(5) In law (usually of contractual matters, a person participating directly in or having a derivative interest in a legal transaction.

(6) A toilet, lavatory, loo (mostly obsolete and tended to be applied to outside structures (also as outhouse)).

(7) Of or relating to one person only (archaic).

1175–1225: From the Middle English pryvy & prive (secret, concealed, not made known in public), from the Old French privé (close friend (adjective) & private place (noun), from the Latin prīvātus (private; deprived), the perfect passive participle of prīvō (I bereave, deprive; I free, release).  The adjectival form came first in the sense of something "secret, concealed, not made known in public", the noun forming later to describe places secluded or deliberately hidden" a direct use of the Old French privé (friendly, intimate; a private place) from the Latin prīvātus.  The now familiar phrase “privy to” (participating something a secret to most others) is from the late fourteenth century.  The phrase Privy member (organ of sex; the genitals) was from the late thirteenth century.

A privy.

The sense of the noun privy meaning "latrine, outdoor toilet in a small shed (outhouse) dates from circa 1200, from Old French privé & privee used in the same sense, the meaning in French literally "private place, the noun derived from the adjective.  Historically, the outdoor facilities for urination and defecation were differentiated by being either open (latrine) or enclosed (privy).  Privy (the spelling privie is obsolete) is a noun & adjective, privier & priviest are adjectives, privily (the spellings prively, priuely, pryvely & pryuely long obsolete) is an adverb and priviness is a verb; the noun plural is privies.  A privy chamber was the private apartment of a royal residence in England, analogous with places like the pope's apartment in the Vatican, the flat in 10 Downing Street or the residence in the White House.  In the English (and later the UK's) monarchy, the term privy chamber referred nominally to the place but more broadly to the sovereign’s private office and staff.  In an age when the authority of kings and queens was greater than now, the privy chamber was the most influential department in the royal household and thereby the system of government.  In the sixteenth century, as the role and extent of government expanded, the Privy Chamber came to be understood as a political institution, something distinct from the king's apartment (loosely referred to as the bedchamber).  In that way, the privy chamber became the outer chamber (often styled as the "presence chamber" or "chamber of the presence) although historians have noted that the key to influence lay in access to the bedchamber.  The privy purse was literally a ceremonial bag carried at ceremonies by the keeper of the privy purse (it’s not clear of ever it was used to carry cash or indeed anything) and the phrase is still use to refer to (1) the British monarch's private income from various sources, (2) the net total of the monies available to the monarch for private or personal expenses (as distinct from what's incurred in the discharge of official duty as head of state) and (3) the official and the office which acts as comptroller of the monarch's finances.

Privy to secrets: Deconstructed, Mean Girls (2004) was about who was privy to secrets and who was not.

In England, the term Privy Council emerged circa 1300 in a general sense and the familiar use to describe the organ of government dates from the late fourteenth century although, reflecting the court practice of the age, it was originally styled (using the French word order) as consaile priue and existed as a group of advisors to the monarch who were summoned or not at his pleasure.  That evolved to a system in which those summoned were those supporting the government of the day and that is essentially the present form although those no longer in favor don’t cease to be privy councilors; they are just not summonsed.  In practice, the advisory body is now the cabinet (all of whom will be privy councilors) although larger assemblies of the Privy Council are sometimes convened for constitution or ceremonial occasions such as the recent proclamation of King Charles III as monarch.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in session.

The historic judicial functions of the King-in-Council are now performed by Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). The JCPC consists of senior judges appointed as Privy Councillors: predominantly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom although senior judges from the Commonwealth can still be appointed. The Privy Council formerly acted as the High Court of Appeal for the entire British Empire (other than for the United Kingdom itself) and continues to hear judicial appeals from some other independent Commonwealth countries, as well as Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.  Although the Privy Council’s decisions are mostly not binding on the UK’s domestic courts, the rulings are held to be extremely persuasive as other respected tribunals (US Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Canada etc) are regarded.  One quirk of the Australian Constitution is that, the 1986 Australia Acts notwithstanding, the High Court can issue a certificate referring certain cases to the council but none has been granted for a century and the court has long made clear there’ll be no more.  As a bit of a relic of English constitutional history and the established church, in the United Kingdom, the Privy Council retains appellant jurisdiction some domestic matters:

(1) Appeals from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York in non-doctrinal faculty causes

(2) Appeals from the High Court of Chivalry.

(3) Appeals from the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports and Admiralty prize courts.

(4) Appeals from the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

(5) Disputes under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, essentially a role similar to that the High Court of Australia discharges as the Commonwealth’s Court of Disputed Returns.

The JCPC (always referred to as “the Board”) was long noted (and much admired) for handing down single judgments without dissenting opinions; a fine example of judicial clarity and efficiency that other courts showed no inclination to follow.  Unfortunately, in recent decades, multiple opinions have been allowed.

Looking the other way while the Supreme Leader is engaged.

The Supreme Leader, mid-engagement.

The statesman who has done most to advance privy design is Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1983; Supreme Leader of the DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).  On the rare occasions the Supreme Leader leaves the DPRK (traveling usually by train), included in his inventory is a customized state limousine (either a Mercedes Maybach S62 or a Mercedes Maybach S600 Pullman), said by some to include a "built-in toilet".  No photographic evidence of the convenient installation seems to have appeared but the "information" has appeared on the internet so users regard it vested with whatever veracity seem appropriate.  Apparently, it's easy to tell when the Great Leader is relieving himself inside his mobile privy because the security detail always discreetly looks away from the car.  Other than the rumored privy plumbing, the cars are distinguished from the standard models by a longer wheelbase, an armored floor and laminated windows, all features designed to withstand attacks by firearms or explosives & bullets.  It's further claimed (un-named) "diplomatic sources" have confirmed the DPRK's security agencies (there are several, all of which also monitor and investigate each other) had the vehicles commissioned to prevent foreign spies from taking stool or urine samples which could be analyzed to allow Kim Jong-un's state of his health to be determined.  The Supreme Leader is probably right to take precautions because several sources have reported the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has made more than one attempt to collect his fecal samples (nice work if you can get it).  Quite how the DPRK obtains their fleets of Mercedes-Benz has been the subject of speculation because the sanctions imposed by the EU (European Union) and others should prevent such transactions so either there's been some sanction-busting (a long and lucrative tradition) or the Supreme Leader has resorted to buying used cars, a thing analysts think most improbable. 

Within the borders of the DPRK, the logistics are simpler, the Supreme Leader always provided with a portable privy for his exclusive use, at all times under military guard to ensure no others intrude.  It's believed whenever he leaves the privy, recalling an old DPRK adversary, he utters the words "I shall return".

Swirl

Swirl (pronounced swurl)

(1) A twist, as of hair around the head or of trimming on a hat; a whorl or curl.

(2) Any curving, twisting line, shape, or form.

(3) A descriptor of a state or confusion or disorder.

(4) A swirling movement; whirl; eddy; to turn or cause to turn in a twisting spinning fashion (used especially of running water).

(5) In fishing, the upward rushing of a fish through the water to take the bait.

(6) To move around or along with a whirling motion; a whirl; an eddy.

(7) To feel dizzy or giddy (the idea of a “spinning head”).

(8) To cause to whirl; twist.

(9) To be arranged in a twist, spiral or whorl.

(10) Figuratively, to circulate, especially in a social situation.

(11) In AAVE (African-American Vernacular English), to in some way mingle interracially (dating, sex, marriage etc) (dated; now rare).

(12) In internal combustion engines (ICE), as “swirl chamber”, a now generic term for a type of combustion chamber design.

1375-1425: From the late (northern) Middle English swirlen (to eddy, swirl) which was probably from the Old Norse svirla (to swirl), a frequentative form of Old Norse sverra (to swing, twirl).  It was cognate with the Scots swirl & sworl (to eddy, swirl), the Norwegian Nynorsk svirla (to whirl around; swirl), the Swedish sorla (to murmur, buzz) and the Dutch zwirrelen (to swirl).  Related forms included the dialectal German schwirrlen (to totter), the West Frisian swiere (to reel, whirl), the Dutch zwieren (to reel, swing around), the German Low German swirren (to whizz, whirl or buzz around), the German schwirren (to whirr, whizz, buzz), the Swedish svirra (to whirr about, buzz, hum), the Danish svirre (to whizz, whirr) and the English swarm.  The construct may be understood as the Germanic root swir- + -l- (the frequentative suffix).  Swirl is a noun & verb, swirled is a verb & adjective, swirling is a noun, verb & adjective, swirly is a noun & adjective, swirler is a noun and swirlingly is an adverb; the noun plural is swirls.

In English, the late (northern) Middle English noun swirlen (to eddy, swirl) seems originally to have come from a Scottish word, the origin of which is undocumented but etymologists seem convinced of the Scandinavian links.  The sense of a “whirling movement” emerged in the early nineteenth century although the meaning “a twist or convolution (in hair, the grain of wood etc)” was in use by 1786.  The verb as a transitive in the sense of “give a swirling or eddying motion to” was in use in the early sixteenth century but it may by then long have been in oral use, one text from the fourteenth containing an example and the source of that may have been either Germanic (such as the Dutch zwirrelen (to swirl) or the Norwegian Nynorsk svirla (to whirl around; swirl) or it may have evolved from the English noun.  The intransitive sense (have a whirling motion, form or whirl in eddies) dates from 1755.  The adjective swirly existed by 1785 in the sense of “twisted or knotty” but by the middle of the next century it had come also to describe anything “whirling or eddying”, applied especially to anything aquatic.  By 1912, it was used also to mean “full of contortions or twists” although “swirling” in this sense had by then been in (gradually increasing) use for a century.

Of curls & swirls: Lindsay Lohan with curls (left) and swirls (right).

In hairdressing, although customers sometimes use the words “curl” and “swirl” interchangeably, to professionals the use should be distinct.  A swirl is a movement or pattern in which hair is styled or arranged, typically with a rounded or circular pattern and swirls can be natural (the pattern at the crown of the head where the hair grows in a circular direction) or stylized (the look deliberately created and most obvious in “up-dos) or the formal styles associated with weddings and such).  The end result is a wide vista and the swirl is more a concept than something which exists within defined parameters.  A curl is (1) a type of hair texture or (2) the act of creating a curl with techniques using tools and/or product.  Some people (and there’s a strong ethnic (ie genetic) association) naturally have curly hair due to the shape of their follicles and within the rubric of what used to be called the ulotrichous, hairdressers classify curls as tyree types: (1) tight (small, corkscrew-like structures), (2) medium (tighter curls but with a softer appearance) and (3) long spirals with a large diameter).  Some commercial product also lists “ringlets” as a type but as tight, well-defined spirals, they’re really a descriptive variation of the tight or medium.  So, the essential difference is that a swirl is a pattern or movement of the hair, while a curl describes texture or shape and while a swirl is a matter or arrangement, a curl demands changing the hair’s natural texture or shape.  Swirls are very much set-piece styles associated with formal events while curls are a popular way to add volume, texture, and movement to the hair.

In internal combustion engines (ICE), the “swirl chamber is a now generic term used to describe a widely-used type of combustion chamber when upon introduction, the fuel-air mixture “swirls around” prior to detonation.  The design is not new, Buick’s straight-8 “Fireball” cylinder head using a simple implementation as long ago as the 1920s and it would serve the corporation into the 1950s.  The critical aspect of the engineering was the interaction between a receded exhaust valve and a rising in the top of the piston which “pushed” most of the fuel-air mixture into what was a comparatively small chamber, producing what was then called a “high-swirl” effect, the “Fireball” moniker gained by virtue of the actual combustion “ball of fire” being smaller in volume than was typical at the time.  The benefit of the approach was two-fold: a reduction in fuel consumption because less was required per power-stroke and (2) a more consistent detonation of the poor quality fuel then in use.  As fuel improved in quality and compression ratios rose (two of the dominant trends of the post-war years), the attraction of swirl chambers diminished but the other great trend was the the effective reduction in the cost of gasoline (petrol) and as cars became larger & heavier and roads more suited to higher speeds, the quest was for power.

Swirling around: The swirl process in a diesel combustion chamber.

Power in those years usually was gained by increased displacement & combustion chamber designs optimized for flow; significantly too, many popular designs of combustion chamber (most notably those in the so-called “wedge” heads) were cheaper to produce and in those years, few gave much thought to air-pollution.  The cars of the 1950s & 1960s had really toxic exhaust emissions.  By the mid 1960s however, the problem of air pollution in US cities was so obvious and the health effects were beginning to be publicized, as was the contribution to all of this by motor vehicles.  Regulations began to appear, California in 1961 (because of the high vehicle population and certain geographical & climatic phenomena, Los Angeles & San Francisco were badly affected by air pollution) passing the first statute and the manufacturers quickly agreed to adopt this standard nationally, fearing other states might begin to impose more onerous laws.  Those however arrived by mid-decade and although there was specific no road-map, few had any doubts the rules would become stricter as the years passed.  The industry’s only consolation was that these laws would be federal legislation so they would need to offer only one specification for the whole country (although the time would come when California would decide things should be tougher and by the 1970s there were “Californian cars” and “49 state cars”).  K Street wasn’t the force then it later became and the manufacturers conformed with (relatively) little protest.

Fuel was still cheap and plentiful but interest in swirl chambers was revived by the promise of cleaner burning engines.  Because it wasn’t new technology, the research attracted little attention outside of the engineering community but in 1970, German-born Swiss engineer Michael May (b 1934) demonstrated a Ford (Cologne) Capri with his take on the swirl chamber in a special cylinder head.  In a nod to the Buick original, May nick-named his head design the “Fireball” (professional courtesy a thing among engineers).  What Herr May had done was add a small groove (essentially a channel surrounding the intake valve) to the chamber, meaning during the last faction of a second of piston movement, the already swirling fuel-air mixture got a final nudge in the right direction: instead of there being a randomness to the turbulence of the mix, the shape was controlled and was thus able to be lower in volume (a smaller fireball) and precisely controlled at the point at which the spark triggered detonation; May called this a “higher swirl”.  Not only did this reduce exhaust emissions but it also cut fuel consumption for a given state of tune so designers could choose their desired path: more power for the same fuel consumption or the same power for less and within a short time, just about the whole world was taking great interest in fuel consumption.

Detail of the original "flathead" cylinder head of the Jaguar V12 (left) and the later "Fireball" head with swirl chambers (right).

A noted use of May’s design was its adoption in 1981 on Jaguar’s infamously thirsty V12 (1971-1997), an innovation celebrated by the addition of the HE (High Efficiency) label for the revised power-plant.  The notion of “high efficiency” was comparative rather than absolute and the V12 remained by most standards a thirsty beast but the improvement could be in the order of 40% (depending on conditions) and it was little worse than the similar displacement Mercedes-Benz V8s of the era which could match the Jaguar for power but not the turbine-like smoothness.  Threatened with axing due to its profligate ways, the swirl chambers saved the V12 and it survived another sixteen years which included two severe recessions.  Debuting even before the Watergate scandal, it lasted until the Monica Lewinsky affair.  In the decades since, computer simulations and high-speed photography have further enhanced the behavior of swirl & turbulence, the small fireballs now contained in the center of the chamber, prevent heat from radiating to the surrounding surfaces, ensuring the energy (heat) is expended on pushing the piston down to being the next cycle, not wasting it by heating metal.  The system is popular also in diesel engines.

Bedchamber

Bedchamber (pronounced bed-cheym-ber)

A now archaic word for bedroom; the alternative form was bed-chamber.

1325–1375:  From the Middle English bedchaumbre, the construct being bed + chamber.  Bed was from the Middle English bed or bedde, from the pre-1000 Old English bedd (bed, couch, resting-place; garden-bed, plot), from the Proto-Germanic badją (plot, grave, resting-place, bed) and thought perhaps derived from the Proto-Indo-European bhed (to dig).  It was cognate with the Scots bed and bede, the North Frisian baad and beed, the West Frisian bêd, the Low German Bedd, the Dutch bed, the German bett, the Danish bed, the Swedish bädd, the Icelandic beður and perhaps, (depending on the efficacy of the Proto-Indo-European lineage), the Ancient Greek βοθυρος (bothuros) (pit), the Latin fossa (ditch),the Latvian bedre (hole), the Welsh bedd (grave), the Breton bez (grave).  Any suggestion of links to Russian or other Slavic words is speculative.

Chamber dates from 1175-1225 and was from the Middle English chambre, borrowed from Old French chambre, from the Latin camera, derived from the Ancient Greek καμάρα (kamára) (vaulted chamber); the meaning “room”, usually private, drawn from French use.  As applied to anatomy, use emerged in the late fourteenth century; it was applied to machinery in 1769 and to ballistics from the 1620s.  The meaning "legislative body" is from circa 1400 and the term chamber music was first noted in 1789, not as a descriptor of any musical form but to indicate that intended to be performed in private rooms rather than public halls.

The Bedchamber Crisis, 1839

A Lady of the Bedchamber, a position held typically by women of noble descent, is a kind of personal assistant to the Queen of England.  A personal appointment by the Queen, they’ve existed for centuries, their roles varying according to the relationships enjoyed.  Most European royal courts from time-to-time also adopted the practice.

The 1839 bedchamber crisis is emblematic of the shifting of political power from monarch to parliament.  Although the eighteenth-century administrative and economic reforms created the framework, it was the 1832 Reform Act which, in doing away with a monarch’s ability to stack parliaments with ample compliant souls, shattered a sovereign’s capacity to dictate election results and within two years the new weakness was apparent.  In 1834, William IV (1765–1837; King of the UK 1830-1837)  dismissed the Whig Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; Prime Minister of the UK 1834 & 1835-1841) and appointed the Tory Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850; Prime Minister of the UK 1834–1835 & 1841–1846).  However, the King no longer enjoyed the electoral influence necessary to secure Peel a majority in the Commons and after being defeated in the house six times in as many weeks, the premier was obliged to inform the palace of his inability to govern, compelling the king to invite Melbourne to form a new administration, one which endured half a decade, out-living William IV.  The king's exercise in 1834 of the royal prerogative proved the last time the powers of the head of state would be invoked sack a prime-minister until an Australian leader was dismissed in 1975 by the governor-general (and in a nice touch the sacked PM had appointed the clearly ungrateful GG).

Queen Mary's State Bed Chamber, Hampton Court Palace (1819) by Richard Cattermole (1795–1858).

By 1839, Melbourne felt unable to continue and the new Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), reluctantly, invited Sir Robert Peel to assume the premiership, a reticence some historians attribute as much to her fondness for the avuncular Melbourne as her preference for his Whig (liberal) politics.  Peel, knowing any administration he could form would be nominally in a minority, knew his position would be strengthened if there was a demonstration of royal support so asked Victoria, as a gesture of good faith, to replace some of the Whig Ladies of the Bedchamber with a few of Tory breeding.  Most of the ladies were the wives or daughters of Whig politicians and Sir Robert’s request made sense in the world of 1839.

Victoria rejected his request and prevailed upon Melbourne to continue which he did, until a final defeat in 1841.  By then it was clear only Peel could command a majority in the Commons and he insisted on his bedchamber cull, forcing Victoria to acquiesce to the parliament imposing on her the most intimate of her advisors.  This is the moment in constitutional history where the precedent is established of the parliament and not the Crown determining the formation and fate of governments.  Since then, the palace can warn, counsel and advise but not compel.

A lady in, if not of, the bedchamber.  A recumbent Lindsay Lohan in The Canyons (IFC Films, 2013).