Talk:Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading

[Untitled]

"Social Reform".

As always with a Wikipedia article there is an assumption that "social reform" means a bigger government - more taxes, more government spending, more regulations and so on. What has this got to do with the "liberty" that Lord Reading is claimed to have stood for? Other than being the bane of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:F182:F09C:FAAE:E7D2 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Kipling

His poem 'Gehazi' ( referencing the story in 2 Kings) is supposed to be about Isaacs and the Marconi scandal. Worth a mention, with proper references and sourcing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.140.30 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Marconi scandal

Is there seriously any dispute that Isaacs was involved in the Marconi scandal? Please discuss. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• • "Lord Reading; the life of Rufus Isaacs, First Marquess of Reading", Harford Montgomery Hyde, Heinemann, 1968, pages 124,138-140
  • "Rufus Isaacs, first marquess of Reading", Stanley Jackson, Cassell, 1936, pages 167-172
  • "The Marconi scandal", Frances Lonsdale Donaldson (Lady.), Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962

etc etc. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored with these references. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because the only source originally provided does not seem to mention Isaacs at all. I have not verified the new ones you added. Crum375 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on limited access via GoogleBooks, I am having a hard time verifying the statements made in this section. Specifically, "... a parliamentary investigation ... found that Isaacs ... had purchased shares in the American Marconi company, confirming the insider trading that lay at the heart of the scandal." Also, that statement as it stands is logically incomplete, since buying shares does not "confirm" insider trading, unless there are other incriminating details, which are not mentioned. Since you obviously have access to these books, can you please provide a quote (with a page number) from them which supports and explains the above statement, and specifically explains why the accusation was made against Isaacs? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence needed expansion, which I have done, with another reference. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FRAMED PRINT OF RUFUS ISAACS

CLICK HERE to view FRAMED PRINT OF RUFUS ISAACS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.190.242 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rufus Isaacs - portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rufus Isaacs - portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Judaism

I have qualified the description of his distinction as first Jewish British cabinet minister "religiously-practising", to distinguish him from earlier ministers eg Disraeli, who were of Jewish race but no longer practised the faith at the time of office.Cloptonson (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this but I'm still very doubtful about its premise. Quite apart from anything else, he was not the first practicing Jew to serve in the British cabinet - Herbert Samuel beat him to it. Moreover the peculiar and glib comments in the lead about his title 'outranking' Disraeli's are totally irrelevant given that Disraeli was the lone Earl of Beaconsfield. The Rothschilds would be a better comparison if one is to be made.86.181.139.203 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

KC

When did he become a KC?Paulturtle (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1898 http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U215996/READING?index=1&results=QuicksearchResults&query=0 Graemp (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Should this not be added in? - though strictly speaking in 1898 he would have been appointed QC, and would have used the style of KC from 1901 onwards.Ntmr (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom

Looking at this category, I am not sure that the alteration made by Worobiew to this external link is necessarily a correction. Some of the entries in the category are to titles, but most of the entries seem to relate to individual marquesses. (If the link from this article needed to be changed, then so do many others). Is there an established convention here? Perhaps this article could cross-reference both to Marquesses of Reading and directly to Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.Ntmr (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jobber

I don't have a biography to hand, but didn't he fail as a stock jobber ("trader" as we would nowadays say) and have to submit to some bell-ringing ceremony where it was announced that he was unable to meet his obligations that day? I doubt he went completely bankrupt as he would have been unable to be either a barrister or a politician, but he must be pretty much the only man ever to get to top of both professions having failed at trading as a young man (I suppose Disraeli deserves an honourable mention for his debts from his South American get-rich-quick scheme in the early 1820s, but despite being articled to a solicitor he never practised as a lawyer afaik and I'm not sure he ever even qualified).Paulturtle (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paulturtle: Yes, he was hammered for £8,000 in August 1884, "two stock exchange waiters striking the rostrum with their hammers prior to the public announcement that Rufus Isaacs was unable to meet his financial obligations". There had been a slump in the foreign market, his working capital was reduced because of the end of his partnership with Phipps, and there was a suggestion that J. B. Joel did him dirty. I'll try to find my copy of Montgomery Hyde's book to see if he says any more, though Judd seems to follow him rather closely iirc. As to why he wasn't bankrupted - he had no assets, so his creditors would have gained nothing, and I have a feeling that these may have been debts of honour, which would not be enforceable in law (that would need checking). He repaid them all, with interest, within five years of being called to the Bar. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. I also have a copy of Montgomery Hyde kicking around somewhere. Political biographies tend to be a bit weak on business & finance matters, partly because the records no longer exist (if they ever did) and partly because they are too far beyond the knowledge of the writer. (I've yet to read the biog of Beaverbrook completed by Charles Williams before he died to see if he has found anything new on how he made such a huge fortune by the age of thirty.) I may be wrong but I doubt that business debts like that would have been "debts of honour" - that usually applies to gambling debts and other arrangements between friends ("Intention To Create Legal Relations" being one of the basic requirements of a contract in English Law, along with Offer, Acceptance, Consideration etc). Modern spread betting is legally gambling rather than trading, but they make you sign a contract when you open the account.Paulturtle (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I found this in an old encyclopaedia, not dated but 1920s. After a description of the hammering ceremony, and how outstanding transactions are handled (these create the estate which the Stock Exchange official assignee uses to settle what he can, the defaulters debts would not have been to the public, but to the brokers), "The defaulter is not made a bankrupt legally, but ceases to be a member". I think the membership aspect of the Exchange is the key, it seems to be (or at least was then) of the nature of a private club or association (you couldn't be a member unless you were a shareholder, and practically no one could hold shares who wasn't a member, you had to be either nominated by a retiring member, or have been an authorised clerk, and then there was an entrance fee and annual dues). Isaacs rather irregularly became a member at 19, signing a declaration, as the rules required, that he was at least 21. He later said (it was raked up during the Marconi affair) that he did so on private advice and he believed it was only a matter of form. It would be interesting to look at other new members of the time to see if any others had similar irregularities. You make a very good point about political biographies and business affairs. I'd be surprised if enough documentation ever existed, let alone survived, to sort out the Beaver's rise to fortune, he was too canny for that. One of the reviews of Williams's book says "He became an adept of bloated over-valuations of stocks in company flotations and mergers, insider information, market manipulation, “deceitful negotiations in hotel rooms”, inadequate audits, and taking inordinate personal commissions on deals. By the age of thirty he was a sterling millionaire. But his dealings were denounced as “a swindle” and saddled him with a “dreadful” reputation in Canada". DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Have found my copy of Montgomery Hyde, he does go into more detail than Judd (who does otherwise follow him very closely). "However, a defaulter is not a bankrupt in the legal sense, since by Stock Exchange rules he has been debarred from carrying on any other business and he is consequently unlikely to have any significant liabilities outside the 'House'. The bulk of his creditors therefore are fellow members of the Exchange and they prefer to make their own arrangements for dealing with his estate, fixing the amount of the dividend payable from his existing assets, rather than employ the machinery of the ordinary Bankruptcy Court with its Receiving Order and Public Examination. Rufus Isaacs's liabilities amounted to £8,000. But his three sureties were not called upon to pay the amounts which they had individually guaranteed, since the debtor had been a member of the Stock Exchange for more than four years". He then recounts the rumour about Joel (and makes reference to a letter from Walter Hines Page to Woodrow Wilson which Beaverbrook quotes in Men and Power), and that Isaacs had "threatened to 'get even' with him one day and had in fact done so... What is beyond doubt however is that twenty-four years later Rufus Isaacs was to worst Jack Joel in a dramatic criminal trial at the Old Bailey". Unfortunately he does not appear to tell us about this "dramatic criminal trial"! DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahh! It must have been the Robert Standish Sievier blackmail case. Must read up on that. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References