Dear Sir, — I wrote you, under date of March tenth, that the bill remitted by you for one thousand dollars, drawn by Edward Montague, on the house of Tompkins and Todd of this city, had been paid by a draft on Bell and Brothers, of Liverpool, England. This draft I remitted, according to your directions, to my friend, John Ferguson, of the house of Ferguson and Partridge, our correspondents there, with instructions to obtain if possible, from the same house, a draft on the country of Northumberland.
In this he succeeded, by procuring a draft on Edward Raby, Esq. Enclosed you have the seconds of the several bills, and duplicates of the letters of advice accompanying, the same. At my request, Mr. Ferguson waited on Mr. Raby in person. The money was promptly paid, but not without a good deal of grumbling.
Nothing very intelligible was said; but Mr.
Ferguson could distinguish in the mutterings of Mr. Gentlemen , — A draft drawn by Edward Montague, Esq. We have accordingly drawn on you in favor of Mr. James Langston of this city, for a corresponding amount. We remain, gentlemen,. Sir, — The draft of Messrs. Tompkins and Todd, on account of Mr.
We have this day drawn on you for the amount, in favor of Mr. John Ferguson, of this place. Hoping that it may be quite convenient for you to meet the draft, and begging a continuance of your favors, we remain, sir,. Here then Balcombe found his suspicions completely verified.
Montague was in receipt of an annuity — an annuity grudgingly paid — and derived from the devisee under the primitive will. There could be little doubt that the money was granted as hush-money by the devisee, Montague still possessing the second testament, and holding it in terrorem. Napier upon this head, when accident threw them together in the prairie. Keizer, an original vagabond, is also a most efficient diplomatist and ally. The adventures of the trio in pursuit of the missing document, eminently display, in the author of George Balcombe, that rarest of all qualities in American novelists, and that certainly most indispensable — invention.
With permission, we will go through these adventures one by one — doing this with the less scruple, because we intend to do it so briefly as not to interfere with the main interest of the book itself, and because, with this object in view, we have purposely delayed our notice until the volumes had been some time is possession of the public. In a conversation between Balcombe and Napier, occurring in the early part of the first volume, we learn some particulars in regard to Mary Scott, daughter of Mr. Both Montague and Balcombe, we have already said, were proteges of the old gentleman, and resided atone period in his family.
She, however, loved only Montagne, and seeing the necessity of arming Balcombe against himself, frankly told him of her pre-engaged affections. The lover thus rejected, became the friend and confidant. At first, Montague would have been glad to have made Mary his wife; but as his circumstances improved, he discovered that Scott was even poorer than he had supposed, and his selfish heart grew chill at the supposition.
A certain elderly maiden too, of wealth, was said to look kindly on him. His visits to Mary, therefore, grew less frequent. In one of them, Balcombe was witness to a circumstance which led him to suspect dishonorable intentions. Suspicion, unfortunately, was not all; it appears that the intentions were accomplished. Balcombe sought a private interview with the villain. I would not accept it. I demand to know the fact, for my own purposes, and to be used at my own discretion.
Mark me. I do not ask whether you profess to love her. I know that you do. I have that from her own lips. I demand to know whether you do love her in very truth. Therefore I acknowledge to you that I do love her with all my heart.
Balcombe, I do not understand this peremptory tone. I want it for my own purpose, again, and to be used at my own discretion. Answer you shall. Truly or falsely, is your own concern. I hardly expect the truth, and do not care to have it. But I will know on what footing you place this thing. I am, therefore, careful not to offend him; and I have reason to believe this marriage would not be agreeable to him. Poor as I am, he would regard it as a duty I owe my ancestors, not to ally myself to his overseer.
You never read it. It is witnessed only by us two. What can you claim under it by your own testimony? Would you, the wary, the crafty, the selfish, rapacious Edward Montague, have been content to have a will of lands, under which you expect to claim, so witnessed? Shame upon you, sir. Would you palm such a bare-faced lie on me, as well as on that poor, confiding, generous, true-hearted girl? I will undeceive her instantly. I shall never forget the grim smile in which something like triumph seemed struggling to free itself from the mire of degradation into which 1 was trampling him.
Before that I cannot. I sprung at him, I know not why. But he darted through the door, and jerked it after him. I did not pursue him. Balcombe now sought Mary, and found her in tears. Still unsuspecting the whole truth, he revealed to her the deception practised upon her by Montague, and concluded with an offer of his own hand. Here, after the lapse of some time, Montague was seen to renew the visits which had been discontinued since the period of his interview with Balcombe.
No one else visited the house — but from being steeped in poverty, the little family seemed rising above pecuniary trouble. This mystery is explained in a subsequent part of the first volume, when, shortly after the rencontre in the prairie, James, the brother of Mary, brings a letter from her to Balcombe in Missouri. She writes that, after the departure of B.
Scott, Montague sought to renew his visits — that she refused to see him, and urged her mother to order him from the house — that Mrs. Scott was overcome, however, by his protestations, and pressed her to meet him — that, without undeceiving Mrs. In a private interview he stated that Balcombe had misunderstood him, in supposing him to speak of lands, as the property bequeathed, and that no explanation had been offered before because he Montague had been forbidden the house by her father.
He came now, he said, to offer reparation and marriage. She rejected the offer with scorn — and he left her, after taking measures for the comfort of Mrs. Scott, and the education of little James.
Old Mr. Raby now died, and Mary saw nothing of Montague for two months. She heard from him, indeed, and, though he did not express himself distinctly, she inferred from what he wrote that he had not been disappointed in the will. At length he called to see her, accompanying the English devisee, and requested again a private interview.
She remarked a great attraction in his manner, for it was about this time that he joined the church. He professed deep contrition for his wrong to Mary — again offered marriage — offered every service in his power, and, being rejected in all offers, wound up by requesting a favor. He placed in her hand a packet as large as a dozen newspapers, and well secured with twine and seals. This he asked her to keep, and she promised to do so. He begged her to promise farther that no eye should see the contents of the packet. She did so. Put it away. If it is in your way, throw it into the fire. If not, keep it until I call for it.
Mary did not see him again for some months, and he then endeavored to get possession of the packet — first by asking for it as a matter of course — and, upon being refused, by force. He was foiled, however, in his attempt — and left the country with precipitation, after stopping the pension of Mrs. It was probable that he thought no new provocation could make matters worse. Mary proceeds, in her letter, to inform Balcombe, that thirteen years of seclusion having rendered her totally ignorant of what was going on in the world, and having no one to advise with, she had no means of conjecturing the nature of the mysterious packet.
It was obvious to her, however, that its possession or destruction was an object eagerly sought by Montague, and, she doubted not, for some villainous end. Although willing to bear her own lot without murmuring, she felt it her duty to alleviate, if possible, the want she had entailed upon her mother and brother. We give her plan in her own words. I have just learned where he is by means of a gentleman, who, for some purpose of his own, has been endeavoring to find him out. About the same time I ascertained by mere chance, that you, my only friend, were in the same part of the country.
The coincidence seemed to point out the course 1 should pursue. I would gladly have your counsel, and have determined to secure to myself all the benefits of it by doing nothing that you do not approve.
Brief Instructions upon my Paradoxes of Defence for the true handling of all manner of weapons together with the four grounds and the four governors which . George Silver's 'Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence' is considered one of the foremost works in the Western martial arts canon. Conceived as a.
I have accordingly directed. James to find you out, and hand you this letter. He carries one also to Montague, which contains a demand of a suitable provision for my poor mother, and of such aid as may enable James to resume his studies, and qualify himself for a profession. Is this exacting too much?
Of that I constitute you sole judge. If you disapprove the measure altogether, send James back as he goes. In making this demand, I do not propose to continue to hold the rod over him. It might seem too much like retaining the means of future and indefinite exaction. This last will be delivered when you direct it, and not before; and I have to ask that you will direct it when that which is right in your judgement that Montague should do, is done, or so promised as to secure performance.
Do I then ask too much when I beg that you will yourself see Montague, and hand him the first letter, which James will give you; and that, when he shall have done what is right, you will direct James to deliver to him the parcel with which he is charged. You will perceive to him the parcel with which he is charged. You will perceive that it is not my wish that this poor boy shall understand any think of what is done, lest by possibility he might come to the knowledge of what would drive him to acts of desperate revenge.
Montague having called upon Colonel Robinson, Balcombe father-in-law, with the view of purchasing land, he is there encountered by our hero and Balcombe. In a conversation dexterously introduced and sustained by the latter, the rogue is led to betray himself so egregiously that no farther doubts of his guilt are entertained, or of the surety of the grounds upon which the two friends have to proceed. Keizer is engaged to prevent, by force, if necessary, his departure from the neighborhood — but this is not attempted, and Balcombe and James obtain another interview with him in the woods near a camp meeting.
The letter from Mary is handed him by James.
Upon reading this letter Montague declares himself ready to do and submit to whatever might be required, upon the condition specified — the receipt of the parcel. Balcombe demands an advance of a thousand dollars, and ten bonds for three hundred each, payable to James Scott at the end of each of ten successive years, with good security to each bond. To this, Montague, having no alternatives, agrees — promising to deliver the money and bonds, and receive the parcel from the hands of James Scott, at the same spot, on the following Saturday evening.
His real design, however, is somewhat different. Having decoyed Balcombe and James to the rendezvous, he purposes with the aid of some of his agents, to get possession of the parcel by force, before paying the money; and afterwards with a view of preventing discovery, to carry our friends across the Missouri, and leave them to perish in the wilderness. This design is easily anticipated by Balcombe, who converts it ingeniously to his own advantage. Had he possession of the token handed to James by Mary, it is clear that nothing further would be necessary in order to obtain the missing will.
But James has been especially directed to deliver the parcel into no hands but those of Montague — and his scruples are not to be overcome. Neither can B. He determines, therefore, to let M. This accomplished, he, Balcombe, will have acquired the right to retake it. Keizer, the wily agent of Balcombe, is bound to that gentleman by many ties of gratitude. Of this Montague is unaware, and having frequently tampered with him in other cases wherein B.
This also B. In all this scheming, however, Balcombe is somewhat overreached. Montague discovers, by accident, the league between Keizer and B. It must be understood that as expected Montague, before his suspicions of Keizer were aroused, had engaged his services with those of a couple of his Indian friends, for the robbery and abduction of Scott and B. Coming, however, with James to the rendezvous, in full assurance that Keizer and the Indians were to be the agents employed against him, B. Montague, getting possession of the parcel, retires, while the rest of the party hurry off our two friends in the direction of the Missouri.
In the meantime, Keizer, with his Indians, having waited an undue time at the false rendezvous appointed him by Montague, comes at length to a suspicion of the true state of affairs, starts immediately in pursuit, and overtakes the enemy — in good season for a rescue. Two of the villains escape — the third, one Ramsay, is shot dead by an Indian and his body thrown by Keizer into the river. As they approach, the door opens, and in the darkness they can just see Montague enter.
Watching him through a window they perceive him opening the identical parcel of which so much has been said. It contained a casket, and this again a broken ring and a scrap of paper. Napier taps familiarly at the door, and Montague opens it, after being seen to throw the casket hastily in a drawer.
Napier approaches the drawer at once, and obtains possession of the treasure. The villain is entirely taken by surprise, and in his terror indicates the route of his agents, professing at the same time his innocence of all designs to commit murder. Taking him with them, the Colonel and Napier proceed to the river, and finding blood, with other similar traces, return home in despair, supposing Balcombe to have perished, when they are agreeably disappointed by his presence, with that of Scott and Keizer and the Indians — not forgetting Montague.
Here, however, Balcombe reckons without his host. Although Montague has not the broken ring, yet he has read the slip of paper, and may easily persuade Mammy Amy to deliver him the will. This idea now forces itself upon Balcombe — but too late — for the arch-rogue is already far on his way to Virginia. Lest Balcombe should pursue him, he has managed, by an ingeniously laid trail of circumstances, to bring about his arrest, with that of Scott and Keizer, on a charge of murdering Ramsay.
This man it will be remembered, after being shot by one of the Indians, was thrown into the river by Keizer. The accused party, however, after much difficulty, are admitted to bail, and Keizer starts for St. Louis in pursuit of the runaway — followed the next day by Napier. About half way between St.
Charles and St. This is a great way of explaining how blade play works. Tempo dictates the speed and rhythm of a fight, Measure is the correct distance in which you can strike, Line has to do with the angle of approach and Guard is the position in which you can safely receive an attack. These are Judgement, Distance, Time and Place. They are are very similar.
Judgement includes a multitude of individual ideas. The script is presented in Appendix A. Through the coding and analysis process, 27 codes were developed, with references to those codes across the eight sources. Through a process of refining, these initial codes were grouped into eight categories; Adaptation, Contract, Failure, Interessement, Networking, Prework, Problematization and Trust.
These categories were the basis for memo writing during the coding process, and the key themes and associated data from each of these is presented next. The business managers interviewed work with a wide variety of clients across many industry sectors, from civil servants in defence procurement to health providers and oil and gas producers. A common theme across many interviewees was the need to adapt their approach based upon the audience, with one interviewee noting that language tailored to the client was important.
There is a question of whether the adaptation of appearance and language is fundamentally different to other aspects seen as typical of business development such as demonstrating capability or experience. This explored further in the following sections. Typically, the government mandates, for transparency and value for money requirements, that the majority of this work has to be competitively tendered, albeit with some circumstances where a single source award can be acceptable.
Any contact with the project team after the ITT is issued is not allowed under contract rules, and queries should be made through commercial channels so they can be shared with other tenderers. You can say a lot then [early], as soon as they issue the ITT they are quite correct and they don't engage with you, and we won't bother pursuing them at that point. Another interviewee identified this early engagement as a strength when dealing with such contracts. So for example we're in dialogue with somebody and we'd like to do this package of work and they have to compete it, then it's much better for us to work up the requirement that will go into the ITT.
Conversely, where this early influence is not available, the interviewee will not bid at all. Where we only receive the ITT late we're not often interested in even bidding as there has been no chance to influence. Other interviewees sought this early engagement as a method to shape the ITT when it is issued. The commercial guys will respond to bids, but the project teams will write the requirement.
This is often done through repeat work, where the consultancy have people involved in either previous stages of that programme or other elements, and provide advice to the client on what the ITT should look like. Counter to this, there are issues in these types of contracts where the consultant can be seen to provide too much work upfront to be considered for awarding the main contract. A business manager who works in the rail sector noted that these contractual behaviors are not limited to government clients but that large multinationals can have similar rules too.
The interviewee in the case went on to note that these rules can in cases be broken, citing a recent piece of work with this client that was not competitively tendered but had a value above this threshold. Increasingly we're developing relationships with big tier one contractors such that when we identify interesting work we know they can't do and ask if we can use their framework with them taking a cut.
This does have potential downsides and may only be sustainable in the short term, as noted by another interviewee. Long term maybe it's not the right approach, as [competitors] who have some fantastic engineering capability are suddenly aware of what we're doing and then might develop that capability.
Failure is often caused by not identifying the correct people within an organization to engage with to develop potential contracts. There are many reasons they might not be the right person but can generally be characterized by not holding sufficient or the correct power and influence within that organization, with one interviewee stating Unless you know very, very clearly your contact's remit and what they have authority to do you can waste time, and we have wasted time in the past, convincing an individual that TEC is right when they don't have the authority to do anything about it. Indeed, it is even possible that the person who has the authority who you have been dealing with leaves the client organization.
We can see that the consultant in this case is actively discouraged from providing an innovative solution as this might not fit in with the marking scheme that has been prepared in advance of receipt of tenders. All the business managers interviewed raised networking as an important part of their job.
Similar to the failure theme discussed in the Failure section, many business managers viewed identifying the correct person in the client organization as being paramount to being successful in developing positive engagements. So in this example, while the business manager has identified the senior responsible person, they have also noted that additionally others within that organization need to be satisfied that the consultancy has the technical capability to deliver. The interviewees noted that repeat business forms a large part of the future order book and as such, informal networking often takes place when colleagues are working on other projects.
We're generally dealing with the same people over and over again in our customer organisations and the job is to get to know them and understand the challenges they're facing in delivering their roles and how we might support them. In such cases, it is typically not the business manager who is directly involved as they generally have no role in the delivery of a project post contract.
One interviewee stated how he relies on this business intelligence: It's not always me in the room so opportunities might come from other TEC staff who come to me from a meeting they've had with a customer either as part of a delivery and they explain to me that an opportunity exists. This was further developed on by another interviewee who found that although being with the potential client was the best approach to understanding their problems, outside of being formally invited, you needed a legitimate reason to be with the customer.
Floorplate presence, and a reason to be there as well. You can't just have a business developer who just walks around talking and everyone looks at him and thinks he's just there to take money from us. Networking is clearly an important step in developing relationships with customers and gathering intelligence on future engagements; however, there are many different approaches to doing this and it clear that the correct approach needs to be taken in order to be successful. The interview questions directly asked interviewees of their use of work at risk, defined within TEC as work that results in a deliverable to the client prior to formal agreement of a contract, and this was intended to help develop an understanding of how the business managers use such work to form the basis of successful engagements.
This does not include initial meetings with or presentations to potential clients as these are budgeted for separately. Similarly, the response to ITTs is not covered here as these costs are accounted for elsewhere. One interviewee expressed a tendency to avoid such approaches and instead rely upon their own knowledge of the client gained through their own experience of working within that market. This interviewee focused solely on approaching clients through his knowledge of the relevant market.
If I consider them a high priority organisation or a high priority programme I might spend more time trying to understanding them Sometimes I'll just use my current level of understanding and see where I get to. It's a bit of a black art. Whereas all the other interviewees were more inclined to provide potential clients with some free advice upfront if it made it more likely that they won future work. In some cases, this was work which was delivered to a client, such as The way that we would typically do that is we might generate a one pager or a white paper which talks about different potential solutions.
And We started out on [a large project] like that, we did give them a document for free that actually scoped out what their requirements were. Whereas other interviewees were more reluctant to give things away but would put effort into doing work, demonstrating it to a potential client but not leaving them with a product at the end of the demonstration.
One interviewee went so far as to develop a functional simulation of a clients' system so that they could present this in a sales meeting and show the impact of changes to this system.
We knocked up a prototype for what we thought the solution might look like. The reason for doing that was to demonstrate what we meant by modelling. So being able to click on something, change a parameter and then instantly see the impact of that on your global system … That particular example I don't know there was much more in it than saying this is what we've done, come and take a look and showing them it on the laptop. There is a clear risk in giving away such detail before a contract, but in this case, the interviewee had assessed that risk.
I wasn't concerned about that in that example, because I knew they didn't have a capability in house and I knew that our solution was sufficiently different from the competition. So prework such as this has a clear benefit in communicating to potential clients how the consultants perceive their problem and any solution they propose might be required. Some care needs to be taken not to provide too much detail in advance and there are ways of limiting this risk, such as not leaving work with potential clients.
As with networking, it can be seen that both these areas are where trust is developed between the client and the consultant. The interviews clearly illustrate problematization as the process of the consultant becoming indispensable to the client by defining the problem and suggesting how this would be resolved if all parties agreed to the programme of work set out by the consultant.
Comments and reviews What are comments? Apelin and apelin exhibit direct cardioprotective activity against ischemia—reperfusion injury. But a struggle with a people who live in a distant land, who have also an extraordinary familiarity with the sea, and who are in the highest state of preparation in every other department; with wealth private and public, with ships, and horses, and heavy infantry, and a population such as no one other Hellenic place can equal, and lastly a number of tributary allies- what can justify us in rashly beginning such a struggle? No William, that subject must never be named between us again. Of this Montague is unaware, and having frequently tampered with him in other cases wherein B. The mother of our hero, then, was one of two daughters, the only children of Mr. It must be understood that as expected Montague, before his suspicions of Keizer were aroused, had engaged his services with those of a couple of his Indian friends, for the robbery and abduction of Scott and B.
This manifested in many different ways across the interviews, and some of those have been discussed in the sections earlier and where appropriate, these will be drawn together here. Problematization can occur through a number of different means and set out here are three ways in which business managers from TEC have undertaken this transformational process: i developing personal relationships, ii demonstrating capability and iii demonstrating an understanding of the real problem the client is experiencing.
One interviewee linked problematization to capabilities of the people involved in forming the relationship between the consultancy and clients. That is, the consultancy is in the business of selling people. So to make ourselves indispensable we need to demonstrate that the people who will be delivering the work are the right people to do the job. As discussed in the Prework section earlier, this can either be done through meeting with the client or more effectively by getting consultants into the client organization for a few days to deliver small amounts of work or to help the client explore the problem.
There is a need for these to be the right people, otherwise the approach may not be successful, with the consultancy not making itself indispensable to the potential client. In one interviewee's opinion, the capabilities expressed as technical proficiency of the people are at least as important as their specific approach to the problem. I've taken all sorts of people with specific skill sets into a room and within ten minutes you can see the guys, our potential client is completely satisfied that we've got a high level of technical proficiency and working with us is not going to be a risk.
You can see that in 10 minutes. This interviewee works in a market that is relatively new to TEC, so they are unable to rely upon the reputation they may have in other markets. All the way along, and there's a number of people involved, we're capturing information from every discussion we have.
We're trying to build up our unique offering, we're trying to differentiate us from our competitors in that market. It's not just technical people we need to influence, its procurement people. We need to access through the right frameworks etc. So that's quite a complicated one.
And If I think about where we've had success in using that approach, and where things haven't been quite as successful. It's probably come down to our ability during those initial engagements to convince that individual that we sufficiently understand their problem and had similar experience elsewhere. Undertaking work at risk can also be a successful means to demonstrate how a consultant might be indispensable to a potential client. In the simulation example discussed earlier, the interviewee went on to note that the prime reason for developing the simulator was that TEC did not have the capability to deliver what the client had originally asked for but that an alternative approach would exceed their original requirement and deliver further insight into the problem.
We went away and had a think about it and decided that actually we can't deliver that but what we thought they needed wasn't a fancy visualisation but what they really needed was some insight into their system. This interviewee also provided an account of what happened when they went to meet the client to demonstrate this simulator: At the beginning of the meeting, it was a gamble, the guy didn't want to be there. I think he had regretted setting up the meeting.
By the middle of the meeting it was clear he started engaging with what I was doing. By the end of the meeting he was incredibly enthusiastic about the approach. In this case, the approach was successful and the interviewee went on to state that they were awarded a contract valued at several hundred thousand pounds. They sought a workshop with people across the delivery organization in order to address this and demonstrate the need for streamlining of the future programme. In order to organize this workshop, the interviewee went through a long process of building a relationship with the potential clients.
The thing is that process didn't start at the workshop, in order to get the guys there and speak openly and trust us we have three years of engagement with them prior to that workshop. Problematization is a key component of building the relationship between the consultant and the potential client and there are a number of different ways the business managers that were interviewed have done this. One interviewee provided a good example of failed interessement—they gave the client a solution and rather than accepting the role of customer to that solution as intended, the client decided they had the capability to deliver the solution and did so themselves.
This was the key point of translation in this network. I've seen before when we've approached [a client] and the way that the project manager laid it out it gave them the answer and they said great, thanks very much we'll do it our self then and we lost the work. Building upon this failure, and attempting to understand why this happened, a discussion of how much information is enough to give away to ensure interessement is successful took place and this was also followed up with other interviewees. The interviewee suggested a good way of doing that is you can talk about a period where you need to engage and understand better before you then start to work out what the solution might look like.
A further interviewee made a subtler point in relation to competitively tendered projects. The same interviewee considered competitive tendering to be damaging to this process: I think you can use competition, but increasingly that competition means we disengage, we give you a requirement, everybody gets the same level of disengagement and therefore we can judge it as a level playing field.
In my view, that's actually counterproductive. What you then get is, no doubt you've done it, you've written an email to a friend and he's misinterpreted it. Anything in the written word can be misinterpreted, until you get the chance to engage more thoroughly. So I think it's more commonplace at the moment to be distant and stand offish during the competitive process, but I think it really hinders progress. One interviewee has found utility, when there is no clearly defined solution to a perceived problem, in convincing the client to fund an initial scoping study that allows the consultancy to investigate the problem and develop requirements on behalf of client.
As raised in the Contract section earlier, some client organizations, such as government clients or large multinationals, have procurement rules that would prevent this from happening. This interviewee additionally identified the role competitors play during interessement in enacting resistance to its success. A consultant must be aware of this potential resistance and develop methods to respond to this. In his example, this is done through differentiating services and the work they wish to do from that of their competitors.
In the backdrop of all this [a competitor] were saying you don't need TEC we can [do] the whole thing, rework and design.
We said you don't want to do that you want to keep the modelling separate to keep them honest and do your risk mitigation [the alternate piece of work suggested by TEC]. A different interviewee noted that even though in cases where these strict procurement rules apply, it does not mean that interessement will be bound to mechanistic procurement rules. The consultant still has the ability to influence this beyond what is set out in written tenders.