This letter is somewhat lengthy, but the abrupt and discourteous nature of your communication has led me to write more fully than I should otherwise have done. Yours faithfully, FREDERICK BLOOD. P. S.--As this is solely a public matter, I shall send my letter to the Press, and shall be glad to take the same course with any reply you may favour me. APPENDIX No. II. UNHEEDED WARNINGS. The three F’s: Fixity of Tenure, Fair Rent, Freedom of Sale. _Contemporary Review_, February, 1881. The grounds on which the principle of the three F’s were opposed in 1880:-- _The Act of 1870 was to be final, and it is a breach of faith to reopen the land question._ 1. The Land Act of 1870 was an encroachment on the rights of landlords, but was allowed to pass on the understanding that it would be final. 2. To reopen the question with _further_ confiscation is a gross breach of faith. 3. More especially it is a breach of faith with those landowners who have, on the invitation of Government, purchased land in the “Encumbered Estates Court.” The indefeasible title granted to them by the Court (and for which they paid large sums) would be turned into a mere claim to a precarious rent charge. _The three F’s are an infringement of the rights of the landlord. He must be compensated for the material, moral, and sentimental wrong which he will suffer._ 4. “Tenant right” is landlord wrong. 5. Land is the absolute undoubted property of the landlord, and he has a right to do that which he wills with his own. Any curtailment of his power is an injustice, and affects the very principle of property. 6. If the State interferes with his freedom of action, and causes him any material, moral, or sentimental injury, it must properly compensate him. 7. To take away the enjoyment, control, and management of his land is a very tangible infringement of rights, and one for which compensation must be given. 8. To fix a rent is to deprive the landlord of the advantages of competition, and affects him financially. 9. It would reduce him to the position of a mere mortgagee, but without the security and certainty of payment. 10. To deprive him of his power of eviction, is to take away a privilege, a necessity. 11. The tenant’s claim to a “right” in the soil is not founded on any tangible or real historical basis. _The abuse of eviction or raisings of rent is rare; the use is necessary and justifiable._ 12. There is little or no abuse of the power of arbitrary eviction; and even when rent is not paid, the landlords, as a class, are lenient. It is occasionally necessary for the good of the estate to evict (compensation for “disturbance” being paid) in order to consolidate holdings.