Mr. Labouchere defended the Labour-rate Act, and complained that the Government had not received from the gentry of Ireland, or from the Relief Committees, that cordial support which they had a right to expect.  He said, the more the real condition of Ireland was examined, the more tremendous would their difficulties be found.  He believed the great majority of the House was disposed to treat Ireland with a becoming and proper spirit, and that no one contended that Ireland was to be considered a mendicant applying for alms to the Imperial Legislature.  He thought the relief should be granted as a matter of justice, and that the relation between the two countries should be considered as the relation between the members of a family, whose one member had been afflicted by some great and sudden and tremendous distress; and that just as the other members of the family would be bound, in a spirit of humanity and justice, to come to the relief of the starving member, so it was incumbent on the Imperial Legislature to come forward and relieve the starving members of the United Kingdom, at the present moment.  These sentiments were received with marked approbation.  He defended the non-interference of the Government in the supply of provisions for Ireland:  and in dealing with this, not easy question, he reasoned thus:  “We have been blamed,” he said, “amongst other things, by honorable members, who have said to us, ’When you had the corn in the country, why did you not sell it under the cost price—­why did you not allow the Relief Committees to dispose of it at less than its own cost—­it would have been so much better.’  His answer was, because the Government thought it of infinite consequence to foster, in every manner, the retail trade of Ireland.”  There is a confounding of two important questions here by Mr. Labouchere, which should be kept quite distinct, and it even looks like an intentional confounding of them.  What certain members of Parliament may have privately said to Mr. Labouchere, we have no means of ascertaining except from the information he here gives; but he was Irish Secretary, and he ought to have known—­was bound to know—­that the country asked two questions about the supply of food, instead of one:  1.  The first was, “Why did the Government allow the corn crop of Ireland to be taken out of the country to feed others, and await their chance of getting Indian meal from a distance of three thousand miles, to save from starving (which they failed to do) the people who raised that crop?” The Secretary’s answer to his own-made question, is no answer to that. 2.  The second question asked by the country was—­why did not the Government sell corn and meal to the starving people at some price or another, in districts where there was no retail trade, and where the creation of it would be the work of years?  There is no answer given to that by Mr. Labouchere.  It is on record, that the people died of starvation with the money in their hands ready to purchase food, but it would not