LAVAL'S DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 307, 28 December 1935, Page 9

LAVAL'S DEFENCE.

DEBATE OPENED.

Maintained Collaboration

With England,

LOYAL SANCTIONS ACTION.

United Press Association.—Copyright.

(Received 12.30 p.m.) PARIS, December 27.

Opening the debate on foreign affairs in the Chamber of Deputies to-day, the Premier, M. Laval, asked: "Have I done anything not conforming to the spirit "and letter of the Covenant? He referred to the gravity of Sir Samuel Hoare's resignation and Britain's repudiation of the Paris peace plan of which he said: "The Italian Government did not give us all the help we expected."

Obviously referring to M. Herriot, M. Laval said certain speeches did not help their work for peace. He concluded: —

"When England asked our aid by sea, land and air, in the event of an attack, I made a declaration to the British Ambassador, which was repeated to Sir Samuel Hoare. When the question of sanctions arose I took all the necessary measures for their loyal application. I did not fail to maintain close Anglo-French collaboration, which is essential in the interests of peace. I do not object to Britain's rejection of the peace proposals. New attempts must be made."

Continuing the debate in the Chamber of Deputies, M. Yvon Delbos, president of the Radical-Socialist groups, attacked M. Laval. Amid cheers from half the Chamber, he criticised the Government for its lack of adherence to the League Covenant and declared that treaties must no longer be torn up like scraps of paper. War must not be declared. Sanctions did not mean war any more than the Courts meant crime. Fiance's security was at stake. England's Splendid Cry.

Germany herself, he went on, must bow to the League if the latter were victorious in the present conflict, but if the League were flouted security would be menaced. France, by braking the League, had encouraged Italy, where the peace plan was not considered a success, but a sign of weakness.

M. Laval himself recognised that the plan had prolonged the war. It was necessary in order to secure peace to impose the law of Geneva more than ever.

Paul Reynaud (Radical-Socialist) made a pro-British speech which scored the success of the day. He said: "You must choose between Italy, an aggressor, and Britain, a defender of the Covenant. "There is no doubt what the choice lhust be, for without England it means war. If Germany declared war against France, would Britain be with us if we did not fulfil our obligations under the League? It is a grave error to sacrifice everything for Italy's friendship. "The British people's revolt was one of the most magnificent events in British history. Our answer is dictated by_ England's cry—'Halt the aggressor!' * "France must heed that cry." The debate was adjourned.

LIKE A LAW COURT.

Deputies in Judgment on

Premier.

"FLOWERS ON HIS GRAVE."

1 p.m.)

PARIS, December 27.

The procedure in the Chamber of Deputies resembled that of a law court, with M. Laval on trial for his political life. M. Blum was less damaging than had been anticipated, but even he urged M. Laval's dismissal.

M. Delbos' speech, which M. Herriot punctuated with nods of approval, was considered decisive, M. Laval's chances of survival decreasing with every word that M. Delbos uttered. M. Delbos spoke like a judge, M. Laval listening stonily except for an occasional ironical smile.

The Paris correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" says that when M. Delbos recognised M. Laval's good intentions and credited him with a desire for peace, it was as if he was strewing flowers on M. Laval's grave.

Other commentators pay tributes to the amazing oratorical triumph of M. Reynaud, who rose from his sick bed to deliver his speech. It was generally felt that- had the vote been taken immediately after, the Government would have fallen.

The "News Chronicle's" Paris correspondent declares that M. Laval's losing rearguard action was almost a complete rout.

SURVIVAL EXPECTED.

May be Kept in Office to

Pass Budget.

DISPUTE WITH M. HERRIOT.

(Received 9.30 a.m.)

PARIS, December 27.

Newspapers forecast a majority of 20, but agree that defeat is possible, especially in view of the now notorious differences between M. Laval and M. Herriot regarding French foreign policy.

There seems to be little doubt that the Premier has lost the confidence of the Chamber, but Parliamentarians desire the Budget to be passed before the end of the year without the disturbance of a Cabinet crisis. They are anxious to see, too, what Mr. Eden's policy is likely to be before making a change.

Yesterday M. Laval presented to the Cabinet an outline of the defence he will give for his Italo-Abyssinian policy, one °of the features of which, it is understood, is that France will refrain from any military or naval move aoainst Italv unless Italy gives such provocation as an attack on the British Fleet.

Although the deputies are expected sharply to question the Government, the debate may not end in a test vote. After giving an explanation of the abortive = Laval-Hoare peace plan, the Premier may be able to avoid a vote, and that course is desired by many who are anxious to keep the Government in office until the new session begins in January.