 Thank you, now can everybody hear me? Okay, this is room by inclination and some of us are by profession intellectuals. As such, there is a continual temptation for us to pay a greater regard to the power of ideas than is actually in the case. Intellectually convinced of the power or libertarian or conservative ideas, and our intellectual conviction has created a passionate, moral and spiritual conviction of the truth of those ideas. And there is a temptation for us to regard those people who do not share our conviction as either bad or stupid. In the case of many intellectuals, that is a fair influence. But when it comes to the great commands of ordinary people, I think it is unfair. Most ordinary people are cleverer than I am, and many of them are cleverer than you are. The difference between them and us is that they don't care about ideas. They care about ideas in the way that I care about the color schemes. I am as capable as anybody of looking at a particular color scheme and saying, well that doesn't seem to work very well, or that's not nice. But when people start talking about the harmony of shades and which color scheme in which my eyes play over them, I am not interested. Go ahead and do it immediately to the experts, and that is how most people regard ideas. They are not interested, but have better things to do with their lives. And so, if we want to win the battle of ideas, if we want to complete an overpowering victory in the battle of ideas, a victory that persists generation and in its century after century. We need perhaps to look at something more powerful as a stabilizing force, with only power of mere abstract ideas. And what I want to talk about is at least a study of such a stabilization of liberal, of libertarian or conservative values. I will talk about England as it's the subject that I'm going to next. Now for various historical reasons which would take far too long to explain and which would take me far outside my remit, I will simply say that England was uniquely fortunate. It was the only country in Europe which preserved the empire and the details of a limited medieval constitution into the rising commercial civilization of the 17th century. England is the home of liberal or libertarian or conservative ideas. Or modern libertarianism is, in a sense, a purification of English, political and intellectual experience. That's true if it is perhaps a somewhat exaggerated thing, but I would insist that it is and is not quite true. Now you might think that the English liberal tradition was created by John Locke and David Hume, Adam Smith, and Thomas Baddington McCall, even though they are some criticisms made of him, buzzed on to a little. What I would say is that although these great thinkers contributed much to the English liberal tradition, they've not created it. They are at least as much an effect of that tradition as a cause of it. The reason why England was and remained a free country for certain centuries had very little to do with the power of autonomous ideas. If you think of political philosophy in the late 17th century, you think John Locke is. John Locke's been correct to us that John Locke was an abstract philosopher while his second treatise on civil government was very much, it was very much based on English constitutional tactics of the day, but it has a sufficient degree of abstraction to see whether or not you're English, whether or not English is your first language. But John Locke was never very popular in England. John Locke was the taste of a small minority of intellectuals. By far the more influential factors in the late 17th and early 18th centuries were people like Alvin Sidney. And if you read Alvin Sidney's discourses on civil government, there would be nothing much between you that's questionable and never late. This was far at the time. What kept England free could be summed up in a Latin phrase, first expressed in the 13th century and last heard of the 19th century. There is only an anonymous retiree. We do not want the laws of England to be changed. In the 17th century, there arose the idea in people's minds of ancient and immemorial constitution. This was carried to what we would often consider to be absurd methods, in the legal arguments over the validity of Charles I's shipwreck or his legal taxation in the 1620s, counsel on both sides, formally raising precedence from the reign of King England a thousand years before. There was an assumption in most people's minds that the parliament which opposed Richard Vissett in 1399 was exactly the same in its forms of seizure as the parliament which met in 1741. People might wear different clothes, but everything was unchanged. Later on, this idea of an ancient and immemorial constitution was attacked to the idea of change. You'll read this in Blackstone's Conquistries, of course, in 1764, that there had at one time been this wonderfully perfect liberal English constitution which had been disrupted by the Northern invasion, and the previous 600 years had been a type of struggle to get back our ancient fundamental liberties. But the idea was that the constitution had not changed. It had changed in the past as it was, and any change now should simply be towards recovery that earlier meant. Not true, rather not strictly true. But the point is people believed it, and the fact that the constitution was believed not to have changed in the past was an excellent reason for declaring that the constitution should not change now or in the future. The system was legitimized by the fact, or believed in, its legitimacy. Legitimacy was based on its immemoriality. It had always been so, therefore it should always be so. Now, if you look at England in the 18th century with the eye of an outsider, you'll see rather less than any libertarian society. You'll see many good features, but there's a lot of bad features. Let's look at the law. The criminal law was a mass of injustice. You could be handled by world-renowned opponents. If you would try out one of those values, you were not allowed legal representation. So the question of war is the consequence of a science union. But on pure matter of facts, you were expected to bend yourself. And if there was the slightest defect in the procedure, the constitution case would be thrown out if there was a spending situation in life or in this court, but all proceedings were done in court. But it meant that criminal trials were often rather likely tossing the court. Hence, you hang tables, you go free, you'll get a sense of the subject. If you turn to the civil law, back to him, it was a massive assertion. There were three common law courts. The Court of Kings made it to the Court of Comptes and the Court of Buchekka, and there was each a court, child, three, kid, four, so there were plenty of differences from law and energy. If you wanted to start a law case, you might need to prioritize unions in two or maybe three different courts, which all proceeded at different speeds and ways, and you might want to do well in the other. Everything was slow. Everything was expensive. Many things would need to be answered. England was not a libertarian society as we would regard. In England was a free country. There's no doubt about it. It was a free country. The state did not intervene in many areas of life. We were left alone to live very largely as you pleased at the Court of Comptes and its current work. Now, let me continue with the good about the system. Because everybody believed that the Constitution would be legitimized by its antiquity, and because everybody was terrified to raise a single finger against this magnificent structure known as the English Constitution, it meant that the authorities were as tightly serviced in every area. And if we had had the sort of Constitution that America carried far as it thought, that it would be in the United States, I'll give you two cases to example. In 1765, the government got a general warrant act to serve the prisoner. Now, the common law said that it still says that if you wanted to serve for areas of the crime, you must get one for a magistrate, and you must specify the place to be served, and you must specify what you are searching for. And if there is any conflict in the execution of that one, the officers involved are liable to criminal or civil prosecution. A general warrant would run different. It would allow the authorities to go on what the English is called a fishing institution. There is no address language in the warrant, and there is no specification of rules to be seen. It is just a general warrant. It would allow you to go and do some yoga and look for evidence of a crime which is not specified. Now, this procedure came in the licensing act in 1661. The licensing act would expire in, I think, 1694, but the procedure for getting a general warrant continued. People would not even notice it. They would not leave, and they would not use very extensive. But in 1764, one of the senators of the state got a general warrant to search the crevices of a Mr. Carriter printer to see if he was publishing citizenship literature. Mr. Enfield refused to allow the magistrates and the officers to enter. And he took leave action against the secretary of state. And he went into court. And the judge, a courtier of justice, listened to the arguments on both sides, and the government boys would often say, well, there may be perhaps some ambiguity as to the requirements. But they're required. I mean, how on earth is there to go to a country with all these people running around publishing sedition? And the judge sat down saying, I'm very sorry, but the reason the state is no defense of the court law. And the government lost. And the secretary of state, Mr. Carriter, had to pay damages. A country for the $1,000 or $10,000 doesn't matter. This is a lot of money by today's standards. And from that time, it was generally accepted that general warrants were believed in the court. And the government did not rush through an act of Parliament shortly afterwards allowing general warrants. The courts had relaxed. These warrants were unconstitutional. Therefore, they could not be used. Now, that was something that happened in a time of moderate political excitement. Let me move to another example. 1793, June 2 of the French Republic, the world's first modern totalitarian human machine was chewing its way through France. The king that had his head cut off, the queen that had a head cut off, thousands of people were being brought to death with the sentiments, not even the sentiments of the tribe. France was turning upside down with a cataract with blood everywhere. And there were radicals in England who wanted the same for us. Some of these people were simply as guided to use the idiots. Some of them wanted a real and fair human. Oh, there was a mass, there was a huge model of that. There were people running around saying that Tom Paine was the quality, civil war and rebellion. There were people who claimed that little extracts from the rights of man by Tom Paine were being proofed on sleepcraft and given to children. I mean, you've got important stuff to be inspected for in other contexts. There is a problem with the government to refuse something about it. But even when you put aside the exaggerations and roll back, there was a conspiracy in England. There was a large and well-organized radical movement which wanted to do to England what had been done in France. And so, in September 1793, the government arrested 12 men who except for the leaders of the English radical movement. A couple of them were people like John Phil, a trojan of them and he would probably have loved to stick a cap of lipstick on his head and wander around when people snagged on to the beauty. And the most of the people were people like John Paul, two old-fashioned radical friends of Dr. Johnson believed in the Parliamentary Report. Thomas Harvey had well-intentioned children who believed that if a working man should get an eddy and there should be a Parliamentary Report, a new tax comes back to the city. But these men came to trial at a time of a minute's more time. You can stand on the tips of those and you can look across the channel and explain if the wind is in the right direction and you can go with snow and dark. So, a few years ago there was a lot of travel and you could almost see the ability rising and falling and people were trying to abandon the bridge and these men were brought to trial and they were given a due process for law. The first trial came on after John Paul II. The Defense Council, Thomas I, a great advocate called the Prime Minister to give evidence of the defense. He subpoenaed the Prime Minister to leave passing down the street where he was trying to conduct all the routes and to walk into the guilt of all the trials he had faced in London and to give evidence about how he had co-operated with John Paul II. Nine years earlier he had made a failed attempt of Parliamentary Report. First time spiritual events went on I think for seven hours at the end of that time the jury brought with them not guilty. John Paul II released and he tried twice in the same fence. Never touched again by the authorities for the rest of his life at 2014. Next trial came on, Thomas I, the radical defense minister. Erskine ripped across these areas to pieces. It was based on how the use of such agents let us see over the remarks here's the evidence you can find Erskine's speech in the same trities it goes on and on and on another man's effort at the end of the trial the jury made that not guilty, Thomas I released. The first trial came on John Paul II the government might have a prediction but they lost heart. John Paul came into court and the prosecution stood up considering with the drawing of the starters and Paul rather upset he said to the judge oh but I'm not again caught I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep I want to sleep and there was no oh here's the government sharpened up the laws against religious vital and if you were an anti-establishment journalist you might find yourself sidelined you might find yourself done over and over again but the English constitution imperfect as its was has sufficient legitimacy with the majority of people so that it prevents the horrors of England or the French Revolution it also has sufficient legitimacy with the ruling parks with the powers that they to prevent any of the sort of horrors that you see in operas like The Daily or TOSTA there's sort of nasty reactionary police spying or torturing or putting being there for our trial we had none Yes, we had an absurd and ill-believing system Yes, there was much questionable about the English constitutional law of practice but the belief that this was an ancient and immemorial constitution preserves from anything like the French Revolution or anything like the reaction in most other European countries against the French Revolution the the constitution was destabilized in the 1830s the reformed powers were well intentioned and that was inevitable the legal reforms of the years between 1830 and 1880 were very good the old leading system was very hard to defend but you see it was a change and it was often rapidly changed the 19th century reforms did the best disguise the fact that it was a change the way to maintain the picture of an ancient and immemorial war of things is by allowing most institutions and most customs and those traditions to continue uninterrupted customs died as they become useless and new customs emerged and a result were changes but these changes take place against an apparently un-shifting background it is possible to say the constitution's ancient and un-shakeable you make it that in all parts of the world people forget about it it becomes part of that background of immemorial attitudes and finally the other thing the constitution has a say as we stay alive by reform but at the recent 1970s it was still possible to believe that none of much had changed you see the way in which the government the customs and institutions of an actual life had not changed that much or seen to most people not or changed that much when I learned very good politics of the 1670s and 1890s I didn't have to look up glossaries to see what was this type of read what was that supposed to mean it sure does a how does the bill proceed through Parliament I didn't mean to learn about it it was history but it was also cloud politics I could use my actual everyday experience of constitutional practice in more people to understand the arguments and the proceedings of 300 years ago and then the collapse came on the image of constitution could be compared to one of the whole weak temples we've been looking at for the past few days it stood proud and unbroken for about a few years and then many people decided that these things were worth it and for 200 years fanatics and thieves chipped away at it deleted defaced it for the end of 200 years free structures were still standing still very largely walked where it did in the past and then the enemies found a new way of destroying them as building you do not attack with a frontal sword and the enemies are too solidly constructed what good said the young people like fires the crops collapse bringing them around the ground and bang their good old temples and that's what the left has been doing to my country since the 1960s or the 1970s a number of other values were established here in 1960 in the 1960s they were built for the abolition of form of law still and we throw that in the dark so you can't do that Liberty and England do not detain on the imprisoned constitution as in the United States it depends instead on the way of institutions and such you can't avoid trauma graduate you can't do that with that great money oh then you can't sense the credits oh then you can't do that you can't do that there's no constitutional provisions you just can't do it because it is not a part of our way so what you do need to go bullish our way you do it with small virtue pieces who will be fit to the English system and wait for the engines thoroughly around 12 inches of wood 350 yard 1770 yards of wire 5218 feet of wire 370,000 inches of wire I think it was over here not very rational of it I won't even describe the way they've been weighing it so the electric pace of the engines is about 300 about the only huge price 240 bits per pack divided into 20 shimmings of 12 pins not very sense of the limit electric pace is let's say 100 bits per pack the English counting system 4 year counting which do not necessarily correspond with the law and distribution but good let's sweep the way let's divide the law to two characters let's put it in the class let's avoid a little set of problems what are we going to do with the procedure well let's give it a little bit of ownership of language of realism today there are some points that should place it with claims claims surely only a pack only a nutcase will change to these improvements improvements, improvements normalization after they call it the problem is about 40 years of this this with or customs and institutions of it that are dependent having more very big it doesn't work it doesn't work during the past six months I've been doing a lot of radio and television work defending the right of an organization or the British National Party to exist and to continue the British National Party is said to be a National Socialist movement there are some National Socialists in it but I think it's more accurate despite nowadays as a white nationalist the point is it's more natural than they are I mean they go into a guest chamber more or less following their literature they have a right to say their own now at first when I used to go on and attend their right to seek, to publish and to organize I tried being an abstract argument about people's right to express any opinion they like on matter of public on matter of public policy this didn't seem to it didn't seem to get much relevance with people to this argument these men are being prosecuted under laws that have been discriminated for when I was a boy you could say anything wrong to this country on matters of public policy anything at all why can't you back to that these laws are being discriminated for and you know the enemy and the right to vote they are they sit by silent and embarrassed all in well I mean I don't agree with the national party I think they are probably they are angered you know these laws are monstrous you can't do this it still works but they aren't long we are facing not a full front as a whole being but if you can we aren't facing a series of side assortments you attack the minor things of our actual life you tear up that web of customers and institutions that deserve treatment and when you've done that you have things like trial by jury that result from this the right in itself the right to freedom of speech so we've got those things standing alone they are meant to stand alone they are meant to be supported by the far winning of our less important business but they stand alone and they go not over one attack and so I suppose the lesson we are going to say today is this we should try not to be harried about the power of abstract ideas they swear our things but also in the mind of the masses we should respect the customs and institutions of ordinary people so far as we can things may not be immediately conducive to a free society but really from my experience in England once you get rid of things which are not immediately conducive to freedom things like being in the city you will see that they did have a certain supporting role and if we ever do with the lack of ideas in order to get complete and overpowered with the corrupt intellectuals and their business interests and our best interests do not make a recovery we need to ensure our ideas are as far as possible embodied not just in a prison document which my very experience suggests is my learning tonight we need to make sure that our ideas are embodied in the practices and beliefs and customs and traditions of daily life ideas are important ideas in a sense change the world and if you want to influence ordinary people you never just throw a couple of volumes of propaganda or anything of that they're not ready to act they will have a criticizing deposit they're just not after it in the same way as I'm not after deciding what the best policy is we need to be rather more statistically in our defence, in our attack and we have to get it in our fight one last point the English and Serbian is so ill-funded and so immoral that we have to print and bind our own laws and this is the problem it's a couple of years old I'm ready to sell out 20 copies unfortunately I've sold them out I can promise you to rely on it double the size of it but I didn't throw this one together because I came out of some of the theory that I had been bound and I looked and said you don't take those and I said well here it is I'll always sell it with rules of isolation I'll go after that price to stop with the binding it's too much trouble to print the binding you can have them for you can have them you can have them for what is the 10th year there's a reason for that it's like the 4th year 10 years and so if I had my arm out thank you very much for your indulgence