Safeguarding the Control of the " Spectator "
TITF, question how best to secure the future of the Spectator so that it would never fall into the possession of unworthy hands or of a great newspaper combine, whereby its independence would be sacrificed, formed the subject of several conversations between the late Mr. St. Loe Strachey and the present holder of the controlling ordinary shares. No practical steps were taken before Mr. Strachey's death, but he hoped that it would be possible to surmount the legal difficulties and to ensure that the Spectator should not be regarded merely as a thing of barter. We are now able to announce that the necessary legal steps have been taken to safe- guard the future of the Spectator should the present proprietor ever desire to part with his controlling shares.
When the sale of the Spectator by Mr. Strachey in 1925 was announced a leading article appeared in the Times stating that the new proprietor of the Spectator hoped to follow Major Astor's example and would at an early date devise a plan "to ensure its future political independence, in the national interests." The Spectator's scheme has been based largely on that adopted by the Times in 1924. A committee has been established for the special purpose of safeguarding. future transfers of 51 per cent. of the ordinary shares in the Spectator now held by Mr. Evelyn Wrench. The new arrangement does not affect the disposal of the remaining ordinary shares. Nor does it affect the holders of the preference shares, of whom Mrs. St. Loe Strachey is the chief.
The committee which has been established has no other responsibility than to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that ownership of the Spectator shall never be regarded as a mere matter of commerce, to be trans- ferred to the highest bidder. The committee is not in any sense identified either with the management or with the editorial policy.
It has been thought desirable that the members of the committee should act ex-officio, that they should be precluded by their position from active party politics, and that they should represent various elements in the national life—judicial, academic, scientific, scholastic and financial. The following therefore have been invited and have kindly consented to serve The Lord Mayor of London (for the time being).
The President of the Royal Society (for the time being). The President of the Royal Historical Society (for the time being).
The President of the Law Society (for the time being). The President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (for the time being). The Chairman of the Committee of the Head-masters' Conference (for the time being).
The members of the committee cannot, of course, bind their successors, but in the event of any one or more of the future holders of their offices declining to act or being incapable of acting, provision has been made for the appointment of members in substitution for them. The committee has been constituted under the Articles of Association of the Spectator, Limited, and the following extract from the Articles of Association adopted for the purpose defines the principles which are laid down for the committee's guidance :— In coming to their decision whether any Proposed Member is a proper person to hold voting shares of the Company the committee shall have an absolute dis- cretion and may give or withhold their approval on any ground whatever which they think proper and without being bound to give any reason for their decision, it being the intention and an instruction to the committee that the committee in coming to their decision shall have regard to the importance of (a) Maintaining the best traditions and political independence of the Spectator newspaper and national rather than personal interests, and (b) Eliminating as far as reasonably possible questions of personal or commercial profit.
Since its establishment by Mr. Robert Stephen Rintoul in 1828 the Spectator has always been an editor-proprietor paper with the exception of brief interludes, and it seems fitting therefore in its centenary year that steps should be taken which will ensure its future independence. There is a real danger that one day most of the news- papers in this country may be owned by two or three men. We freely admit that to-day is the day of the big combination in business and that multiple ownership frequently makes for efficiency, and in certain cases, as far as the Press is concerned, it has brought about better conditions of employment for the workers. Never- theless, we think that the task of purveying "news and opinion" is somewhat different from that of purveying boots or bedsteads. However public-spirited the present three or four chief newspaper owners in Great Britain may be, it is not in the national interest that they should achieve a complete monopoly and abolish the independent newspaper proprietor should they desire to do so.
It remains to be seen whether the plans devised by the Times and the Spectator will succeed in doing what their sponsors had in view. Experience alone can decide.
Previous page
