my sense of character in this book is more of the now. my sense of character is the process of setting goals and working towards them very slowly learning what you can, developing as you can and then finally reaching a goal only to see your further and further to go. character is about practice. practice, practice, practice. character is about repetition in to get it right. there's no doubt about this. off to the book i'm thinking about not only the writing of this book of those other nine books and books that are yet to come. i feel a lot of what i learned about writing books i learned on the football field. i learned how to revise and revise and defensively time she thought this is impossible. above me was that voice, runs through your pads. somewhere in my head for every book, some kind of voice is likely to come through and say, it's not really about what you

think it's about. movie by 10 degrees and you will be fine. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> daniel hannan is the author of "inventing freedom," recipient of this year's henry and anne paolucci award. in the book he discusses how english-speaking people created the modern world. the book award ceremony and lecture are about one hour.

>> thank you, chris and thank you all for being here tonight. i am jed donahue come with isi. i'm delighted to be introducing daniel hannan this evening russia began with a confession. as i was reading is very fine book, "inventing freedom" i couldn't help but have this nagging sense of in the. not for him for his constituents. he is a politician to his day job in his day job he represents southeast england and the european parliament. as i was reading the book, i was thinking, i was hard-pressed to think american while titian today could write such an ambitious and wide range in persuasive and erudite book. so i'm hard-pressed to think of that right now. as you'll see shortly the erudition on display in this

book is own. believe it or not unlike certain american politicians we've come to know all too well you will be holding forth this evening without the benefit of a teleprompter. this begins to explain why such a worthy choice for the 2014 henry and anne paolucci book award. henry and anne were both distinguished scholars. and so did recognize, the book must display scholarly rigor and make a real contribution to the literature of its subject. and dan hannan fills the bill. he holds a double first from oxford, and in this book you'll see he is citing everyone from washington, which is worth effortlessly. at the same time, transport were not a scholar cities -- schola

scholars. in the public intellectuals in the best sense of that term. henry wrote frequent for publications like "the new york times." even ran for senate against bobby kennedy in new york represent the conservative party. anne for her part published poems and plays. she served on the national council of the humanities. she was the first woman to chair the board of trustees of the university in the cit city of nw york. dan evans on writers are impressive public intellectual. in addition to his day job i mentioned european parliament, worship at, he stands out as a very vocal critic of the eu. he is one of britain's most prominent and respected political commentators. especially to his influential blog at the telegraph.

with the book award of inten ins to of the best books advances conservative principles. in that regard i thank our distinguished panel of judges, some of whom are here this evening has made it very fine choice with "inventing freedom." "inventing freedom." isi commissions to the future leaders are prepared to defend and advance the principles that make american freedom prosperous. inventing the sms rule account of the origin and spread of those principles. in the process of those principles created a fear of liberty that today to me leaders take for granted. tim neverett people take for granted. i will let dan tell you more about all that. without further ado of want to introduce the winner of the 2014 henry and anne paolucci book award, daniel hannan. [applause]

>> thank you for those extraordinary generous remarks. i was wanted it was you were talking about. whoever he is, he sounds such passionate it's wonderful to be here. wonderful to be among you to salute my work. it's nice to back as a reelected representative as well. i have a day job as a member of the european parliament and i've just been through an election so it's been a great relief where no one can vote against bigger i can say whatever i like. if i were an american politician i would say it's great to be in a great state of delaware. i don't even have to do that. none of you is able to vote for me. there is nothing like an election to remind representative of the full range of wildlife he represents last night i told you something about your. i was canvassing in my constituency in a rural area and the farmer came out, breaking speaking to me, and he told me

this story about the eu been, banning some substance that you've given to his people. on the internet did come across this drug and bingo they couldn't get enough of it. all of his cows -- he was enthused about a no-hitter the eu is going to ban this chemical so with getting the food chain. i said right, i will look into that for you. what's the name of the drug? well, i cannot matter what it's called he said, but i can to you that it tastes of -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> now i'm back in europe. to make the move a little bit more calm one of the things about my day job is you get to

meet extraordinary people from extraordinary places. a week ago before king of talkative friend of mine was a polish member of parliament the he's my age. became and politics as i did in his late '20s. he has two little girls the same age as mine but he could have grown up on a different planet. he had grown up under the leadership. his father had defected to canada when he was a small boy. they had only been able to meet once in cuba. the only place they could get visas. the father said come back with me to candidate. he got to serve as an mp in one of the first three polish parliaments. sadly his father was not applied to see it. as we were talking he was talking about the impact that had been made on him as a

teenager, sorry, as a boy by john paul ii first visit to poland. as a polish pope. he told me something i never heard before. you said the holy father never once directly criticized the communist authorities. he said he didn't have to. he just offered something better. that i think should be the creed of conservatives. just offer something better. i saw on the news as i was coming here to pick up a jihadi volunteer, so he decided he was so alienated by this country is going to take up arms with those monstrous blasphemous people in iraq and should we have a similar problem in unit can do. 200 boys draw up a been so repulsed by what ever it was

that they found around them that they've taken up arms around the country in the most extreme way, by fighting alongside some of the most violent people on the face of the planet. it occurred to me, isn't the answer to be offering them something better? what has been their life experience of one of those second generation immigrant boys growing up in an english district? if he got any history at all at school, the story of his country would been presented to him as a hateful chronicle of racism and exploitation. almost all his feelings -- dealings with office would've taught him to fight one national brand is systematically derided and produced over decade come is it any wonder that some of our citizens begin to grope around for alternatives? if you are not satisfied with

being patriotic in the identity, some people will search, scramble around for something more compelling and stronger. we need to offer something better. i made the point earlier to some of you in a much more benign context that this is old but what turned the scottish referendum. until the las last minute the unionists had been sitting here all the things to be scared of a breakaway. we don't know what currency will have, we don't know if we'll be in the eu. we don't know what businesses will stay. a lot of those were valid, rational and people don't like to hear it. it was a bloody minded to treat and all english-speaking people, particularly scots if i may say so, so it was ethically scottish myself, don't you bloody well to what i should or should be fighting for. it was in the last few days of the campaign that unionists began to make a positive pace but instead of threatening, they

begin to say here are the good things that our country stands for. the extraordinary things we have achieved together, spreading law and liberty, ending the slave trade, defeating three attempts to unite europe and democracy but under the eu military dictatorship is that something we are going to throw away without regret? people would respond to want, to optimism, the positivity. is there a better story to be told than that of the three english-speaking people? is there a better patrimony than that which we share, all of us in this room, where ever our ancestors came from, even italy. it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter where ancestry because the great thing about anglos valley is that they are passed on intellectually rather than genetically. it is why bermuda is not easy.

it's why hong kong is not china, for now. it's why singapore is not indonesia. the great thing is we have evolved a civic rather than cash back and it doesn't matter where our grandparents were born. this is now our joint inheritance. it is the inheritance that chris talks about. it is the government that does one thing, that distinguishes english-speaking civilization from all the other models. the individual is lifted above the collected, that the state is seen as it servant and not his master the gift you wanted me to encapsulate in a single phrase, you could do a lot worse than what john adams said about the massachusetts state consultation, a government of

laws, not of men. except that those words were not john adams. he was quoting a 17th century english way called james harrington. the shared inheritance that binds us together. the big mistake that every generation can make is to take for granted the familiar, permanence is the illusion of every page. so easy to become blasé about the good things come all the things that make our life comfortable and modern and rational. freedom under the law, ragged election, habeas corpus, jury trials. these things on the financial condition of an advanced society. they are presents overwhelmingly developed in the language in which you are listening to these words. and to think to see how exceptional they are, imagine

that history had ended carefully. let me take you back to augus august 1941, the day when franklin was not made the longest walk of his presidency. up until that moment in a way that is unimaginable today, the media had contrived to hide the fact the president of polio from the country. every photograph showed fdr seated or standing unaided. on that occasion invited by winston churchill to join him on the decks of hms prince of wales, roosevelt was determined literally to rise to the matter. supported by his son on one side, by a naval officer on the other, leaning heavily on his cane he made his slow way across the deck as the band struck up.

what happened next was the most vivid imaginable demonstration of what defines the english speaking people together. it happened to be a sunday morning, and so the crews were paraded before a joint religious service. the sailors from the uss augusta which carried roosevelt and the crew of hms prince of wales. churchill had chosen every detail personally and meticulously down to the hymns, down to the readings that the chaplain gave from the pope. i will not fail nor be failed. strong, good courage. afterwards, exultantly churchill burst up and make the same language, the same hymns, the same ideals.

when he said the same ideals, he wasn't making some generalizations about being a good guy. think of the world as it appeared from the perspective of 1941. the whole of the eurasian army was under one form or another update leadership. constitutional freedom, liberty under the law was confined to the anglos, to the committee of the free english-speaking people. you didn't even have the consolation of telling yourself that the spread of dictatorship has come about as result of invasion by foreign armies. some parliamentary regimes have been overthrown by invading troops, but far longer was the list of nations which have turned without needing to be invaded because of internal dynamics of their own.

no one in 1941 would have seen anglos and about his. listen to the language in which both the fastest and the communists decried our system of social organization. but always use the same attitude to it was rotten anglo-saxon capitalism. it seemed to them obvious that our system with its stubborn insistence on privacy and the rights of individuals that elevated the individual citizen rather than the collective couldn't possibly stand in the face of ideology. it seemed obvious that our system is on the way out but our old values are finished in the future lay with a powerful

organizing fake. but as we now know, thank god, the world was beginning a period of anglos fear domination which is not the least in theory so widespread that you will rarely find a territory on the planet that doesn't at least pay lip service to it. go to the nastiest dictatorship in the world and you will still generally find something called a congress, whose nervous delegates anticipating the wishes of others gather themselves into things called political parties. even the nastiest and most brutal tyrant who generally find something called a supreme court which on paper is not simply a mouthpiece of the regime. but how unusual is genuine freedom? beautiful turf, better monument at runnymede were magna charta still summarizes monument

at runnymede were magna charta still summarizes as freedom under the law. i don't think you can put it more uniquely than that, freedom under the law. that is our civilizations raise export, our supreme contribution to the happiness of mankind. and that was the dream that inspired us to carry liberty to less happier continents. how did we do it? how did it come about? extraordinarily bridling of the government, it will is not the normal condition of humanity. we've had 10,000 years, and that has come to lunch with slavery and oppression in almost every page and nation except in one civilization. it didn't take long. once the revolution it up and it didn't take long for people to work out that growing your own crop laboriously was not the best cost-benefit way of feeding

yourself. it was much better to steal somebody else's. did you get a game to do it that was more efficient still but the most efficient thing of all was to institutionalize through tolls and taxes, and that was the birth of government. you look at these militias and some basic hellholes calling themselves a government today, we are looking at our very own remote past. how was that circle broken in only one place? great german sociologist saw the anglo sphere with appreciative eyes of an immigrant but it has only happened once. miraculous event that only once broke. how did it happen? how did meet a local, evolved mechanisms to hold our rulers to account? to tell you the whole story you have to read the book which i hope some of you will do, but since you all been kind enough to company give a summary.

one of the ways in which i try to approach this was as an anthropologist. the great takeoff of the english-speaking people happened from the end of the 17th century, particularly the 18th and early 19th century, when our civilization was exalted and reached its fullest flower. now what struck foreign visitors as unusual about the english-speaking people in that time? is there a clue? what do people find to be the peculiarity of anglos fear civilization. we have plenty of visitors. some extremely distinguished with the montesquieu, baltimore, a tocqueville. interesting thing. i find particularly when i speak to distinguish groups like this in the united states, tocqueville is readily prayed at the beginning to he's a stand

thing with an american conservative audience that tocqueville is trotted out as the supreme witness in favor of american exceptionalism. which leads me to conclude is much more quoted than he is red because on the first page of democracy in america he kind of likes of what his thesis is going to be. and he makes clear the atlantic as much now within english channel. he has a to of what he calls the point of origin of every civilization, that then in the new world is given a much more for your scope for development. so you look to the new world, realization and she saw the purest form of the old world origin. spanish america in his eyes exaggerated the ramshackle corruption of philip the fourth.

french america, but english america as he always go to english america in his eyes took for the locals what we call the libertarianism that believe in individual freedom that he saw as a characteristic of great vision. a man who wrote extensively about british as well as american democracy. he was married to an english one. he spent a lot of time in both of our countries, and observing the came out with a beautiful phrase, an american is an englishman left to himself the the encapsulation of his book and unique encapsulation of what i vision you. what was it that tocqueville and all these others, not just the distinguish once but many more frequent but less famous visitors who kept tribal drums and wrote letters home, what

struck them as the defining characteristic of the english-speaking people at the moment of our search? a number of things they picked up on. they found us a course of people. they found dozens and deferential people. goes again with airstrike titles, they were put out. they found is a very materialistic. they were often very rude about this. extremists of left and right have always scored what they see as the moneygrubbing ways of english-speaking capitalists. there were three things that really all focus on that almost every one regarded as unique. the first, and it's hard at this time to unusual it might have seemed but the first was religious pluralism. i don't mean religious

toleration. that existed in lots of places. including some places that we know since free pic it existed in ottoman turkey. but the freedom for every denomination to proselytize freely, that really was freedom. the idea there was an open market in faith as in any other idea that you would compete for souls as you would compete ideologically for any other item. this was something without precedent in it particularly to appeal to a number of french catholic visitors. the itu could be against the system without being anti-clerical, without being completely outside the bounds of decent society. tocqueville writes extensively about this but he noted anti-dilated at great length on what he saw as the extraordinary paradox that catholic in english-speaking countries were

what we would now call libertarians. in other words, he said this is not something intrinsic in the theology. it's something that comes from the religious pluralism. the creation idea of there not being one orthodoxy, one proved set of beliefs. the american republic was perhaps the first place on the planet by several decades to have complete religious freedom. it has become widespread throughout english speaking suicide for anyone else got the hang of it. throughout english speaking suicide for anyone else got the hang of it. they were lifted by the 1830s at a time when the spanish inquisition was going on. this was an extraordinary early development. i think from that flowed a great

deal. something else that struck every visitor. almost by definition strikes a visitor more than it strikes a nation, this is a geographical exceptionalism. you cannot come to most anglos fear societies other than over water. with the exception to come back to in a moment of north america to it is an extended archipelago. great britain, ireland, australia and new zealand, singapore, hong kong. and although north america of course is not an island, the mentality of the founders of this republic was perhaps more than anywhere else that of an island race. look at jeffersons inaugural address can separate by the ocean from exterminating habit of one quarter of the globe to listen to the words of washington's farewell address.

the prohibition on standing armies makes sense. why? if you have no standing army, if your defense depends upon a navy or a territorial militia, the government has no mechanism for info refreshment. if the state on something from the citizens, it has to ask them nicely by some of the represented in the parliament or in the congress. adam smith was writing, -- his

father was a customs officer, growing fat on the trade they came from the baltic and from the european continent. as the money flowed in he realized that the key moment in the development of scotland and the development of great britain more generally have been the act of union of 1707 which dismantled the last internal land. from that moment great britain was an island nation. there were no more internal quarrels. it to turn its energies at work and get as a matter of observed historical facts that was the one at which britain began its descent that took it above the run of other nations. british pluralism, island status, and now the miracle of the common law. that beautiful, bizarre system whereby the law is not written

down from first principles and then applied to specific cases, but that rather grows up case-by-case. each judgment serving as a starting point for the next. no one is the overall controlling intellectual. the law come north in english-speaking society really are the hard ones outcome is not an instrument of state control, but rather a mechanism open to the individual seeking redress. it contains an assumption of residual right. i come across that every week where i work in the european

parliament. there is a fundamental difference of opinions. which stems ultimate from the different legal systems. again and again i say to my colleagues in brussels, why are you regulating x or y, and the and ours comes back, because it's not regulated. [laughter] in their mind unrated and illegal our synonymous. the idea that lack of regulation should be your default option, the financial state of affairs, that is seen as a bizarre peculiarity. i flush this out with one example, the europe union over the last five years has been working for a number of terrible medicines and alternative remedies prohibiting one after another or if not prohibiting them, expensive testing. i'm sure that in this room there is a difference of opinion about the efficacy of alternative

medicine as there is in with a different opinion between me and mrs. hannon on the subject. i think they are harmless and expensive. they are serving a poison. there should be an assumption of innocence. when they were working i thought i better take this up partly because mrs. h., what does team solvency? it's better to have -- [inaudible] perhaps, perhaps never since the authors those words, slide quite so literally as in this case. whether it was good harmless,

they were plainly not venomous. why was the eu ban complex here is where you see why the altar prescriptive legal approach lets you down but it was captured by vested interest in this case big pharmaceutical corporations who saw the opportunity to impose costs, which they could easily beat but whose compliance with be beyond their moral neighbors. that's what happens when haven't altar prescriptive regulatory state. how is this really the exception? if you were designing in the abstract how to run a political system, you would say, you come out with a theoretical and you apply to a particular situation where nobody would've invented and building those how our fathers stumbled upon this extraordinary system, this idea that the law is the property of

the people. your director in his introductory marks spoke of magna carta. whose anniversary falls in june, 800 years old. extraordinary phrase that appears in the great charter that indeed has been assigned more than one of the times by your supreme court where the king agrees to be bound. uses knowledge we put on trial or denied justice to they will be tried only by the law of the land. there's a phrase we use in english so often we don't stop to think about it. it's unusual that we do. no other language has an equivalent phrase used in the same way that we do. the law of the land. not the king's law. not the law of simply scripture interpreted, but a law that is imminent and the population and its territory, a law that is the

property of everybody. that's the real miracle. again and again it turned out to be the hero of our story. it's why anyone would ever their ancestors come from when they buy into our political and legal system, why they can all become full members of our joint anglosphere civilization. where does this leave me? i began by talking about offering something better. i'd like to close with the same request. i find myself having to say this to conservatives. maybe there's something in our conservative temperament that prevent social on the bright side. we can very easily find ourselves focusing on the things we don't like. don't get me wrong, there are lots of things not to like. our values are derived and reduce, our packages and is a

score. we see our children and 10 grandchildren -- it's easy to get angry. when you're only angry, you are neither persuasive nor -- [inaudible] i find myself sometimes being curmudgeonly. this is not a margaret thatcher used to speak or is to speak the they had the trick of breathing a little warmth. optimism into what they were saying. what i'm saying is counterintuitive, literally in the sense that perhaps the human brain expects the worst. i came across a lovely phrase that the create destroying lord mccoury said we're he said they may be telling the truth to assure us that our best days are behind us, but so said every previous generation without much apparent cause it does in 1840. think how many times within

problems grew -- glue and disaster since then. that changes generation to generation the when i was a little boy there was global cooling the now it is global warming. it could be asteroids striking or nuclear war. because it changes by the argument never does but this time it's going to be different. it has been yet. on all the underlying indicators, most people, most countries most of the time are living healthier and happier lives. on the really key metrics, longevity, literacy, infant mortality, calorie intake, height. we are living let's be honest the dreams of our great grandparents, and more and more places in the world are being drawn into the happy, upward

surge of america free trade free trade and specialization. so cheer up. a lovely, lovely line i came across from pope francis what he said don't judge the world i its shortcomings. he said, rather introduce it with the power of love. all conservatives should take that to heart. don't judge the world by its shortcomings. things are getting better. the anglosphere model that has lifted us to such wealth and freedom and power in the world is incredibly well-suited. we are an enormous invented civilization because we have released the genius of a free people. we've given free rein to the inventors that come in a market economy. all sorts of great things like head. technology and manufacturing an amazing advances in biotech.

we are incredibly well-positioned to live even better, even longer lives and we're doing in this generation. provided we retain our faith and our own values. don't throw away what's working. that extraordinary civilization inheritance that your founding fathers didn't give you, but rather maintained and reassert reasserted, and inheritance that they taste back through england's glorious revolution, england's civil war, back before the great charter, common law, it is served to make the people the most prosperous and the most free anywhere on the face of the earth. that is our unique inheritance. that's the patrimony that you were privileged to inherit from your parents.

the impact. pass it on to your children. [applause] >> thank you much, daniel. we do have time for questions, and are looking forward to some good questions. [inaudible] >> brilliant question. [laughter] >> i'm wondering if you address the issue in your book of the influence of calvin in switzerland, luther in the german empire, john knox and the governors in the westminster divines as giving dignity to regular work in the protestant work ethic that was so strong and establishing america's?

>> i do. and it's not an easy subject to write about. i think you heard me mention earlier today, i am on one side scotch presbyterian and on the other catholic which gives me -- than most english people have been is something i've always loathed by that's impossible to into the mindset of english-speaking people in the early modern period without understanding the incredibly important truth to them, not only of covenants and a contract, the basis on which america was originally settled. everyone knows the words about the city on health it's become a cliché. wisconsin is what he said before. we are entering into a covenant with our maker. this idea that god has brought us into new land and in exchange we have to live in a particular way. the american republic was founded on the principle. contracts and covenants are as important in anglos religious thoughts us in our economic

model. my children made me put into the book their favorite story, hurling her footstool at the poor minister in edinburg at the cathedral who is thought to be -- the face of the time published in the prayer book he was reading. here's the thing. yet i think it is fair to acknowledge that the peculiar -- on the individual having a just and immediate relationship with the deity has been knocked over spillover effect into political structure to yes, it is fair to say that if you expect to relax -- elect your leaders can which was the thing that drove first to scott to attend and, of course, the puritans who came there, that will have a spillover effect and how you approach politics.

here's the real miracle. when this republic was founded the expectation was that it would be sectarian. the one bit of the revolutionary story that american historians have tended to brush under the carpet was -- who have been strongest in their demand for revolution. the one lot of american citizens or american residents who actually properly forced in the loyalists regiments, because it was, i don't want to diminish any war. a war is a war put the cash of his overhaul of the war are pathetically low. this was the most minor skirmish and vaginal. usually the worst unitive fear was house arrest. this was not a brutal conflict. in fact, you would be asked to give your pro. i promise not to fight. okay. off you go. >> the troops from what we call the seven years war, settled

along the hudson valley and in the carolinas and they were determined not to the in the republic which they thought to be deeply unfriendly to them. the extraordinary, almost confidential thing that none of that happened against all the expectations, the united states was born with genuine religious freedom. .. guess so all flow as a matter

of historical reservation, to draw the conclusion, they now got bigger. wonderful thing. they will take root anywhere provided that you got the legal institutions right. they are no longer necessarily sustained by a religious world view. if we are honest the sectarian conflict now seems almost incomprehensible not least because in an increasingly irreligious world the denominations of the church have been thrown much closer together. the objections the puritans had to the roman church in the eighteenth century no longer apply today, the catholic church reform be enormously and you could argue as the catholic church in that sense is more partisan, for example there slightly more catholic, there are conversions in an unfriendly world but the good news is it

doesn't matter. once you have that they take root because they work and you can be hindu or jewish or atheist and still put the system on the market. >> as a canadian i disagree with the corporate version because it kind of was founded or at the lead least english canada by enlightens. fleeing in the revolution, and canada has developed its economic institutions, that matter more than the united states but my question is used dress common law but legislative fear is another thing but the great threat, certainly you were aware of this, that is your job, administrative law and i wish you could comment on that. >> i have nothing to add to what you said. you are absolutely correct.

also, correcting what you said about the revolutionary period. if you really want to see what was actuating the massachusetts revolution that was a fact which would invade canada. this is not -- you don't need to be searching around in the obscure secondary sources. it is in the declaration of independence that the quebec actor is referred to as a grievance against the king that he is raising the catholic power against the republic. an amazing thing that is glossed over in the official history of the period. the fact that early america over came in no time at all as canada did, created the pluralist society we had, all the more remarkable when you bear in mind what they passed through. you are right. i would gladly -- gladly swap my

problem with yours, with canada or with the united states. i would much rather have your prime minister than mine or the american president. i also -- [applause] >> the worst aspects of members of the of the europeans is we are subjected to an alien legal code which has primacy on our own territory. that is the fundamental foundational story from which all our problems have come. the lady in the back. >> i was really impressed by what used that growing up and threw as a 4-year-old boy having to see your parents defend your home. the reason that impressed me is i have the same questions you

had in your book about, why is it so different, and from my point of view i grew up in the midwest and serve four terms for many many years in latin america. i had the same questions you had and i kept thinking these things could never happen in our country and now we see it changing but do you think that part is so burned in your soul that your parents defending your home in peru with guns? >> politics isn't just -- it teaches you ideas have consequences and if you learned that at a very early age, one of

the happy expressions is it is not a lesson most people have to learn in english speaking society. we have moved beyond that. the contrast between north and south america are like a controlled experiment. they were settled at around the same time. south america is the richer so why are there not long queues of u.s. citizens trying to immigrate into mexico? why has one system worth more than the other? not because of some magical property in the soil. if you go from san diego to tawana, very little architecture is similar, the language hasn't changed. having grown up in south america i am very at home there. how is the institution, get that right and everything will follow.

your founders were absolutely convinced of this. jefferson, franklin, if you have a replica of this republican model anywhere in the world it will create the same had the results. as in north america. not because there is something special, eccentrically think you wrote to a friend in france that european skies were always cloudy and virginians guys were never cloudy, which one can put down to justify or to the evidence there was massive global warming before the industrialization, some other explanation of conditions, but the basic ideas that any one can copy has been borne out by subsequent events. canada would have been the thing that surprised the most people. it was founded by fleeing

lorries who wanted to recreate the aristocratic and monarchical system which was rejected here and underlying that immediate impetus in the first tory founders was the deeper instinct towards freedom and self-government and spread out in the vast this, people evolved the same party, individualistic culture as anywhere else. i don't need to tell you is this but the first time i went to canada as a politician i realized it was completely wrong. i assumed it was a different version of the u.s.. the health care system and obsession with doing everything the un wanted to end when i got there realized this had been a perversion, a very unusual twist in canadian history.

this heavily been happened since then but up until that rather dire period, canadians had prided themselves on being more rugged and more independent and intriguing leon having lower taxes. canadian immigration policy had been based on having a more attractive fiscal climate than the u.s. to compensate for the rough climate. that was how they attracted these people. so the goody goody canada i thought was the natural state of affairs turns out not to be at all. they down all british people have a folk memory of canadians as allies on the battlefields and they were very tough people. eisenhower used to remark they were man to man the toughest people under his command and these were never going to be the kind of crude opiates that i thought of you growing up so i

am delighted to see canada under splendid conservative convincingly rejoining the -- we have wonderful conservative leaders in most of the corps anglo companies, steven harper, john kean, elected in the last couple weeks. you guys come on up. we expect more of you, my friend. so. >> how did the magna carta evolve during norman times in a regime that was essentially repressive? >> it is a miracle, isn't it? it is a little simpler miracle how that thing happened. this extraordinary, that above the case was something more powerful, something you couldn't see or hear or taste, and that is the law. we take that for granted today.

it is and imagination to see how incredibly revolutionary the idea was 800 years ago. i suspect they did more than they intended or would have done had they been able to foresee the full consequences of it. they are really extraordinary things, that like with all stands in the english-speaking story, it was partly based on a conviction that people were returning to a better part. 200 years of separation from normandy made englishmen of some of these and it becomes increasingly interesting how the reconquest anglo-saxon witchhunt imposed their wishes on king's. and everything differently from now on, they are saying we are

returning in some sense to the anglo-saxon ideal of the law -- the king being subject to it. the really revolutionary thing and why magna carta became so special is it contained an enforcement mechanism. in plenty of kings who have taken coronation oath where they swore to uphold the law what could you do about it if they king changes his mind? a lot of kings are rare creatures in the middle ages. it is a form of more than humanity contagious, a well learned lesson. fortunately, fortunately for the whole history of our species shortly after the charter, king john rendered one last verdict to his country by dying, throw a pass to his 9-year-old son who became henry iii which means a

conciliar government that the idea of an enforcement mechanism, or a council that would be above the king was not theoretical but actual. when henry iii grew up he tried to shake off the constraints but by then he was too late. there followed a civil war in the former institution of parliament. can the immediate ancestor meeting on the same spot. that was the extraordinary thing about magna carta. without enforcement mechanisms, is working. the old constitution of the u.s.s.r. or east germany will find all sorts of wonderful rights of free speech and free expression and free religion. as a people of those unhappy states learned it is not worth the piper it is written on if you don't have the mechanism to represent the government and hold people to account. that is the real achievement of

the english-speaking peoples. the law was there even before moses came down from sinai. there are scrolls of extensive legal codes in simi area and egypt, neither did we infant democracy. athenians were casting their differently couple holes into voting earns when the distant tribes of the english were grubbing around in the cold soil. what we invented was freedom under the law, the ideal for representative government was there as a guarantor of liberty, an ideal that began on the banks of the thames in hundred years ago and was lifted to its pure form in the old court house in your revolutionary period. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> i know we both believe in free speech but we're not asking you to give one tonight. we actually have thanks to the philanthropy, $5,000 check we would like to award to you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks. you may not want to commit this to euros so quickly. thank you again daniel, thank you all for coming and i think there will be time you can feel free to mingle and network after we are done here. and also purchase the book and he will be signing copies. thank you for coming tonight and appreciate you being here.