Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for coming for what may, I hope, be viewed in retrospect as a landmark occasion.

The reason that we are here tonight is because Sir Richard Body and John Coleman had the original and, in fact, audacious idea of reviving one of the most famous journals in British political and literary history. Yet more audaciously, they proposed entrusting the editorship to a provincial scribbler like me!

As an aficionado of the early 19^th century, that lost world of Jane Austen and rampaging mobs, I was always very much aware of the Quarterly Review – and the effect that it had had on the political and literary life of England. This club, for instance, was founded by John Wilson Croker, one of the Quarterly Review’s most regular contributors, as a place where Quarterly Review readers could stay when they were in London. The idea of reviving such an eminent magazine would never have occurred to me – or if it had, I would have regarded it as presumptuous. Perhaps it is presumptuous.

And yet why not? Just like me, William Gifford, the Quarterly Review’s first ever editor in 1809, was also a provincial scribbler of obscure origins. And the things that concerned the QR’s founders still concern us today in different ways – the sweeping social effects of economic and technological changes, the decline in religious faith, the undermining of old assumptions and old structures, an inchoate uneasiness percolating through all parts of society and throughout Europe. I see our Quarterly Review as a great tradition renewed for a time of great need.

There is also a personal satisfaction for an instinctive conservative like me, to be reviving such a grand name at a time when so many other traditions are being eradicated or falling into disuse.

It is pleasant to raise the great ghost of the Quarterly Review at a time when political discourse is characterized by cowardice and shortsightedness – poisoned by PC stupidity and distorted by party bias – when parliamentary politics is dominated by identikit parties and salesmen pretending to be statesmen. Today, we have a Conservative hierarchy that doesn’t want to conserve – a Labour hierarchy that doesn’t care about social harmony – and a Liberal Democrat hierarchy riddled with illiberal political correctness. Many contemporary politicians seem to have attitudes like the 18^th century Tory MP, Sir Boyle Roche, who once famously asked: “Why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?”

It is also pleasing to consider that by reestablishing the QR we are in some small way striking a blow against deconstructionism and post-modernism – and against a debased popular culture obsessed by whether Brad and Angelina will stay together.

The Quarterly Review will be about principles rather than points of procedure, or whether so-and-so paid for a peerage. Politics, we feel, should be about more than just managing decline, or replacing Tweedledum with Tweedledee every five years.

We believe – hopefully not too naively - that even today there still exists a sizeable minority of people who are interested in serious matters and who care about culture. We believe that many, many people are concerned about the dangerous times ahead – about looming ecological disaster, social anomie and alienation, cultural decay, the challenges posed by globalization, mass migration and the putative ‘clash of civilizations’. To quote again from Sir Boyle Roche: “The cup of our misery is overflowing, and is not yet half full”.

The QR will feature in-depth analyses on topical subjects, as well as summaries and reviews of what we see as the most important books of the moment – intermingled with literature, philosophy, arts criticism and news of relevant events, plus lively columns – and all of this elegantly-written and carefully edited. We hope that in time our Quarterly Review just might become as important to the 21^st century as its predecessor was to the 19^th.

It is very easy to say what the Quarterly Review will be against. But what will it be for? I’m afraid there is no single word that can comprehend our range of interests and sympathies.

The QR will feature a wide range of views, drawn from different traditions. But it will stand, in general terms, for a kind of blend of Old Right and Old Left thinking – for a society founded on cooperation, fairness and responsibility - a society with a strong sense of self-identity and self-worth – a society of autonomous individuals who yet have a strong sense of community and a quiet patriotism. We want to help bring about a Britain that is happier and more united and more civilized.

The QR will stand for a Britain that is supremely conscious of its European identity and common civilization, yet also distinctive, and proudly independent.

We will be against gigantism in all its forms – whether economies, political systems or works of art. There will always be a presumption in favour of the human-scale and the personal over the large-scale and abstract. We will always favour local solutions and the greatest possible decentralization of power. Government needs to be reined in, and slimmed down.

We believe in free enterprise, yet realize that untrammeled free trade brings its own problems – loosening communal ties, undercutting First World jobs and living standards, compromising national independence by allowing control of important industries to pass outside the borders, and eventually turning former industrial powers into lotus-eating lands of restaurants, antique shops and call centres.

We want a less debt-ridden economy based more on self-restraint and self-help, characterized by productivity, craftsmanship, and minimal government interference beyond a necessary safety-net.

We believe that countries should have strong, unified public cultures that assert shared values and history without oppressing private beliefs. We believe that countries have the right to make demands of their people – and that citizenship is more valued when it is difficult to obtain. We believe in the desirability of national borders, and the necessity of controlling them, to preserve the national character and quality of life. But we also believe that minorities with genuine grievances should have their voices heard.

We believe in ordered liberty in the home, in schools, in the streets – a country where law enforcement is minimal, because there are shared morals, and a strong sense of communal identity and family loyalty. We would like to see a country without identity cards, with fewer cameras, with fewer prisoners, with fewer policemen - with more trust, more hope and more contentment.

We believe that education should be unashamedly elitist, with the emphasis always on academic achievement rather than social engineering.

We want to see vibrant high and middlebrow culture aimed at adults, which combines tradition with innovation, and which uplifts instead of degrades. We would like to see media that are more intelligent and less condescending, and for our state broadcaster to concentrate on informing and entertaining us instead of pushing political messages or chasing ratings.

We believe in the protection of Britain’s unique landscapes and flora and fauna, and a new kind of ecology that blends utility, conservation and a sense of aesthetics. We want viable landscapes and townscapes, filled with life and beauty instead of second-homers and wind turbines. We would like to promote measures to tackle overpopulation, to encourage energy conservation, and organic farming. We also wish to play our part in tackling international ecological problems, yet without undermining Britain’s economic competitiveness or disfiguring our own countryside.

We believe in a rational foreign policy, based on national self-interest instead of emotional spasms, backed up by a strong military and a government that is unafraid to act alone. We wish to be simultaneously friends with other European countries, with the US, and with the rest of the world, where such relations are possible – and free to make treaties or defend ourselves as required.

As I said, no single word has yet been coined to describe such a heterodox view of the world. The journal will feature ideas borrowed from traditional conservatism, from old-style non-conformist socialism, from libertarianism, from the localists, the ecologists, the monetary reformers and the small-scale economists.

But one single, overriding motivation will, I hope, govern all the choices we make – respect for what is true, or at least seems to be true, regardless of present expediency. We reserve the right not to give blank cheques to any tradition, or group of people – and will encourage the freest possible exchange of ideas and information between people of good will. Articles will be, I hope, simultaneously insightful and uncensored.

The old Quarterly Review’s publisher, John Murray, wrote to George Canning in 1807, “My object is nothing short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance”. That is also our aim. I am confident that with the help of our remarkable contributors and supporters – men and women like Sir Richard, Edward Goldsmith, Ezra Mishan, Antony Flew, Taki and Diana Schumacher – we will be able to live up to this aim.

It seems to me that there is a real and widespread hunger for answers, and a desire for change, in our world of deceit, wishful thinking and abysmal leadership.

This urgent need just might be met by a journal conscious of a proud past yet looking hopefully forwards, towards a future that we can and must alter.