Editing The Spectator (section)

===Robert Stephen Rintoul===
''The Spectator''{{'}}s founder, Scottish reformer [[Robert Stephen Rintoul]], former editor of the ''[[Dundee Courier & Argus|Dundee Advertiser]]'' and the London-based ''[[The Atlas (newspaper)|Atlas]]'', launched the paper on 6 July 1828.<ref name=FirstNumber/><ref>{{Cite news |date=5 July 1828 |title=News of the Week |work=The Spectator (archives) |url=http://archive.spectator.co.uk/page/5th-july-1828/7 |url-status=live |access-date=7 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181007073730/http://archive.spectator.co.uk/page/5th-july-1828/7 |archive-date=7 October 2018}}</ref> Rintoul consciously revived the title from the celebrated, if short-lived, daily publication by [[Joseph Addison]] and [[Richard Steele]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nelson |first=Fraser |date=March 2019 |title=1711 and all that: the untold story of The Spectator |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/1711-and-all-that-the-untold-story-of-the-spectator |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616154502/https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/1711-and-all-that-the-untold-story-of-the-spectator/ |archive-date=2024-06-16 |website=spectator.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=1 March 2018 |title=How the spirit of The Spectator dates back to 1711 |url=https://retro-blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/how-the-original-spectator-began-on-this-day-in-1711/ |website=Coffee House }}{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> As he had long been determined "to edit a perfect newspaper",<ref name="Beach Thomas 1928">{{Cite book |last=Beach Thomas |first=William |title=The Story of the Spectator, 1828–1928 |year=1928 |author-link=William Beach Thomas}}</ref> Rintoul initially insisted on "absolute power"<ref name="Beach Thomas 1928" /> over content, commencing a long-lasting tradition of the paper's editor and proprietor being one and the same person. Although he wrote little himself, "every line and word passed through the alembic of his brain."<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Froude |first1=James Anthony |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sbC4oVZEDWMC&pg=PA611 |title=Fraser's Magazine |last2=Tulloch |first2=John |date=2 July 1858 |publisher=J. Fraser |via=Google Books}}</ref>

''The Spectator''{{'}}s political outlook in its first thirty years reflected Rintoul's [[Classical radicalism|liberal-radical]] agenda.<ref name="Blake">{{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Robert |date=23 September 1978 |title=From Wellington to Thatcher |work=The Spectator}}</ref> Despite its political stance, it was widely regarded and respected for its non-partisanship, in both its political and cultural criticism. Rintoul initially advertised his new title as a "family paper", the euphemistic term for a journal free from strong political rhetoric. However, events soon compelled him to confess that it was no longer possible to be "a mere Spectator". Two years into its existence, ''The Spectator'' came out strongly for wide-reaching parliamentary reform: it produced supplements detailing vested interests in the Commons and Lords, coined the well-known phrase "The Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill", and helped drive through the [[Reform Act 1832|Great Reform Act of 1832]]. Virulently anti-[[Tory]] in its politics, ''The Spectator'' strongly objected to the appointment of the [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington|Duke of Wellington]] as prime minister, condemning him as "a Field Marshal whose political career proves him to be utterly destitute of political principle&nbsp;– whose military career affords ample evidence of his stern and remorseless temperament."<ref>''The Spectator'', 3 January 1835.</ref>

The paper spent its first century at premises on Wellington Street (now [[Lancaster Place]]). Despite its robust criticism of the Conservative Party leader [[Robert Peel]] for several years, ''The Spectator'' rallied behind him when he split the Tory party by successfully repealing the [[Corn Laws]]. Rintoul's fundamental principles were freedom of the individual, freedom of the press and freedom of trade, of religious tolerance and freedom from blind political adherence. The magazine was vocal in its opposition to the [[First Opium War]] (1839–1842), commenting that "all the alleged aims of the expedition against China are vague, illimitable, and incapable of explanation, save only that of making the Chinese pay the opium-smugglers."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2 May 1840 |title=The Opium War, Its Supporters and Opponents |page=10 |work=The Spectator |publisher=The Spectator Archive |url=http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/2nd-may-1840/10/the-opium-war-its-supporters-and-opponents |url-status=live |access-date=13 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715185045/http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/2nd-may-1840/10/the-opium-war-its-supporters-and-opponents |archive-date=15 July 2014}}</ref> The magazine further wrote: "There does not appear to be much glory gained in a contest so unequal that hundreds are killed on one side and none on the other. What honour is there in going to shoot men, certain that they cannot hurt you? The cause of the war, be it remembered, is as disreputable as the strength of the parties is unequal. The war is undertaken in support of a co-partnery of opium-smugglers, in which the [[British Raj|Anglo-Indian Government]] may be considered as the principal partner."<ref>{{Cite news |date=17 January 1842 |title=The Opium War |page=9 |work=The Spectator |publisher=The Spectator Archive |url=http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-january-1842/9/the-opium-war |url-status=live |access-date=13 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723224724/http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-january-1842/9/the-opium-war |archive-date=23 July 2014}}</ref>

In 1853, ''The Spectator''{{'}}s lead book reviewer [[George Brimley]] published an anonymous and unfavourable notice of [[Charles Dickens]]'s ''[[Bleak House]]'', typical of the paper's enduring contempt for him as a "popular" writer "amusing the idle hours of the greatest number of readers; not, we may hope, without improvement to their hearts, but certainly without profoundly affecting their intellects or deeply stirring their emotions."<ref>''The Spectator'', 24 September 1853, reprinted in Philip Collins (ed), ''Charles Dickens: The Critical Heritage'', Taylor and Francis, 2005 [1971], pp. 295–98, 297.</ref> Rintoul died in April 1858, having sold the magazine two months earlier. The circulation had already been falling, under particular pressure from its new rival, ''The Saturday Review''. Its new owner, the 27-year-old John Addyes Scott, kept the purchase quiet, but Rintoul's death made explicit the change of guard. His tenure was unremarkable, and subscribers continued to fall.<ref>Butterfield, David (2020). ''10,000 Not Out: The History of The Spectator 1828–2020''. London: Unicorn, pp. 40–41.</ref> By the end of the year, Scott sought his escape, selling the title for £4,200 in December 1858 ({{Inflation|UK|4200|1858|r=0|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) to two British-based Americans, James McHenry and [[Benjamin Moran]]. While McHenry was a businessman, Moran was an assistant secretary to the American ambassador, [[George M. Dallas]]; they saw their purchase as a means to influence British opinion on American affairs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Press in a Mess |url=https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/press-mess |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200519053531/https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/press-mess |archive-date=19 May 2020 |access-date=19 May 2020 |website=History Today}}</ref>

The editor was [[Thornton Leigh Hunt]], a friend of Moran who had also worked for Rintoul. Hunt was also nominally the purchaser, having been given the necessary monies in an attempt by McHenry and Moran to disguise the American ownership. Circulation declined with this loss of independence and inspirational leadership, as the views of [[James Buchanan]], then President of the United States, came to the fore. Within weeks, as the last pre-American ownership issue appears to have been that of 25 December 1858. the editorial line followed Buchanan's pronouncements in being "neither pro-[[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] nor pro-[[abolitionist]]. To unsympathetic observers Buchanan's policy seemed to apportion blame for the impasse on the slavery question equally on pro-slavery and abolitionist factions – and rather than work out a solution, simply to argue that a solution would take time. ''The Spectator'' now would publicly support that 'policy'".<ref name="Fulton" /> This set it at odds with most of the British press, but gained it the sympathy of expatriate Americans in the country. Richard Fulton notes that from then until 1861, "the ''Spectator''{{'}}s commentary on American affairs read like a Buchanan administration propaganda sheet." and that this represented a ''volte-face''.<ref name="Fulton">{{Cite journal |last=Fulton |first=Richard |date=Winter 1991 |title=The "Spectator" in Alien Hands |journal=Victorian Periodicals Review |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=187–196 |jstor=20082560}} {{subscription required}}</ref> Under Hunt's tenure, ''The Spectator'' may even have been steered by financial support from the court of [[Napoleon III]].<ref>Butterfield, David (2020). ''10,000 Not Out: The History of The Spectator 1828-2020''. London: Unicorn, pp. 44-5.</ref>