Edward VII's socialist mistress 'Daisy' Greville, Countess of Warwick, argues for the abolition of the aristocracy as hereditary landowners. ] Corrected Typescript, signed 'Frances E Warwick.', of an article titled 'We Must Go'.

Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick [ Frances Evelyn Greville, Countess of Warwick, née Maynard ] (1861-1938), campaigning socialist and mistress of Edward VII
Publication details: 
Without date or place. [ Published in the Daily Chronicle, 12 April 1917, under the title 'Why the State should Own the Land', and reprinted in the journal 'Land Values', May 1917. ]
SKU: 20513

[1] + 8pp., 4to. On one side each of nine leaves, held together with a brass stud. In fair condition, lightly aged and worn, with the first page (carrying only the title and with pencil note 'Ordered') detached. The text is on eight numbered pages, Two passages are deleted in manuscript, as is the final sentence: 'I have written with full knowledge of the facts.' The first paragraph lays out the Duchess's argument: 'The words I have written at the head of this paper express the conviction that has been forcing itself upon me for a long time past and, in the light of latter day developments appears to stand beyond the reach of doubt. We who must go are the aristocracy of England in our position as hereditary landowners. Let the newly made peers of the last decade, who won their spurs in the factory or the political clubs, the lobby of the Hosue of Commons, the drawing rooms, take heart of grace. They are not aristocrats any more than the actor is when for three hours out of the twenty four he becomes a Duke at the bidding of a playwright. Plutocrats, bureaucrats, peers, call them what you will, the great majority have no single instinct in common with the class into whose diminishing ranks they have endeavoured to force their way at the point of the cheque book.' The article concludes: 'The great landowners have had their chance for centuries, their failures outnumber their successes until these last are felt to be quite inconsiderable. In the light of our latter day crisis it can be seen beyond all possibility of doubt that there is no salvation in them. It is time that they should go and only the State can replace them if England is to respond to the needs of the immediate future.' The first deleted passage mocks the suggestion that ordinary people 'never learn the difference between a knife and a fork', and the second reads: 'Only two or three years ago I learned that when a certain peer visits one of his shooting estates the village inn is not allowed to receive visitors nor are any of the tenants of the estates permitted to harbour as much as a relation. Some plebeian might come “betwixt the wind and his nobility”. Can these things endure in the twentieth century? Can the people capable of creating such conditions be permitted to enjoy and hand down to their heirs, the freehold of English earth? Let commonsense answer the question.' Note: Published with the subtitle Why the State should Own the Land, on 12 April 1917, in the Daily Chronicle, and reprinted in May, in the journal Land Values.