LAVAL’S DEFENCE EFFECTIVE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 81, 30 December 1935, Page 9

LAVAL’S DEFENCE EFFECTIVE

Government Survives Fateful Foreign Affairs Debate MAJORITY OF 20 IN FRENCH CHAMBER Support of League Covenant Reaffirmed; Co-operation With Britain By Telegraph—Press A.ssn.—Copyright. (Received December 20, 7.30 p.m.) Paris, December 20. M. Laval. Premier of France., survived the _ fateful two-day debate on foreign affairs in the Chamber of Deputies on which the eyes of the world were focused. After an hours speech, in whicn he answered critics individually, he sat down amid great applause and a vote of confidence in the Government was carried. Revised official figures show _ voting of 296 to 276 in favour of the Government on the Opposition’s motion of regret, that the Government had not given the world a clearer impression of its policy. Subsequent voting on the motion of confidence in the Government, to pursue within the framework of the League a policy of conciliation and international understanding resulted in a vote of 304 to 261. M. Laval’s victory was due to Radicals and Centre Republicans meeting in the afternoon and deciding to support the Government. M. Reynaud resigned the leadership of the Centre Republicans owing to the partv objecting to his speech yesterday, but observers, are still predicting that M. Laval will soon be endangered On domestic issues. The procedure in the Chamber of Deputies resembled that of a law court with M. Laval on trial for his political life. M. Laval reaffirmed France's support of the League Covenant and emphasised the value of Franco-British co-operation.

STORM WEATHERED

Strong Attacks Made By Opposition PREMIER’S FINE REPLY Verdict Once Looked Like Going Against Him (Received December 29, 7.30 p.m.) Paris, December 28. JI. Lava]. In opening the debate on Friday, asked: "Have I done anything not conforming to the spirit and the letter of the Covenant?" He referred to the grave events of -Sir Samue: Hoare's resignation and Britain’s repudiation of the Paris Plan, in which “the Italian Government did not give us all the help we expected.” Obviously referring to JI. Herriot, JI. Laval said that certain speeches did not help their work. “When England asked our aid at sea, on land, and in the air in rhe event of attack,” he said. “I made a declaration to the British Anlbass.idor which I repeated to Sir Samuel Hoare. When the question of sanctions arose. I took all the necessary measures for their loyal application,” JI. Laval concluded. “1 did not. fail to maintain close Anglo-French collaboration, which was essential in the interests of peace. I do not object to Britain’s rejection of the peace proposals. New attempts must be made. I will persevere in my efforts in favour of peacij.” Reference to Mussolini. JI. Laval, referring to the British Government’s “considering as dead the proposals which Sir Samuel Hoare drew up,” added that Abyssinia was shocked by the sacrifice they would have had to accept. The Italian Government had not examined the suggestions with diligence or comprehension. “We had the right to expect, moreover,” he said, “that a certain speech —which ‘The Times’ and other newspapers indicate, was made by Signor Jlussolini at. Poutinia and not by JI. Herriot—did not make the task easier. These events raised grave issues which it is my duty to explain. Regarding the assistance of Britain, in order to dispel any misunderstanding I publicly renew the declaration I made to the Ambassador and to Sir Samuel Hoare.” JI. Blum said that Jlr. Stanley Baldwin had profited by Sir Samuel Hoare’s generous and courageous resignation, but JI. Laval did not have that resource inasmuch as he was both Premier and Foreign Jlinister. The people should not complain of Britain but should applaud her, because her policy of forcefulness was the result of true public opinion enlightened by a really free Press. JI. Laval seemed desirous of facing the country with the alternatives: “My policy or war.” The risk of war was that Italy, with her back to the wall, might attack the British Fleet Or the coast of France. There would be no such risk if every country adhered to the League instead of casting doubt on fidelity to the Pact or the idea of assistance. Herein lay France’s unpardonable mistake The real danger was in the rearmament of Germany, to oppose which there must be either a coalition of forces or disarmament. A Franco-Italian alliance would not avert the danger. JI. Blum concluded with a direct demand for JI. Laval’s overthrow. The Left volleyed applause, the Right hooted, and the Centre remained silent. Law of Geneva Needed. JI. Yvon Delbos, president of the Radical-Socialist groups, attacked JILaval amid cheers from half the Chamber. He criticised the Government for its lack of adherence to the 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. France’s security was at stake. Germany itself must bow to the League if the latter was victorious in the present conflict, but if the League were flouted security was menaced. France, by placing a brake on the League, had encouraged Italy, where the peace plan was not considered a success but a sign of weakness. It was necessary in order to secure peace to impose the law of Geneva more than ever. JI. Paul Reynaud, Radical Socialist, made a pro-British speech, which scored the success of the day. “You must choose between Italy, an aggressor, and Britain, a defender of the Covenant,” he said. "There is no doubt what the choice must 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 sacrifio 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 then adjourned. Outlook Black for Laval. JI. Leon Blum was less damaging than was anticipated, but even so he urged JI. Laval’s dismissal. JI. Y. Delbos's speech, which JI. Herriot punctuated with nods of approval, was considered to be decisive. It was thought that JI. Laval’s chances of survival were decreasing with every word JI. Delbos uttered. He spoke like a judge. JI. Laval was listening stonily, except for an occasional ironic smile. The “Jlanchester Guardian’s” Paris correspondent said: “When JI. Delbos recognised JI. Laval's good intentions to the extent of crediting him with a desire for peace it was as if he strewed flowers on JI. Lav*l's grave.” Other commentators pay tribute to the amazing oratorical triumph of-JI. Paul Reynaud, who rose from a sickbed to deliver his speech, and it was generally felt that had a vote been taken immediately after the Government would have fallen. Saturday’s SpeechesJI. Pezet (Popular Democrat) reopened the debate on Saturday. He attacked the Government and suported the League. JI. Chappdelaine tabled the following motion as JI- Laval took bis seat on the Government bench :— “That this Chamber, true lo France's traditional policy of approving the. Government's declarations, places confidence in the Government to assure peace while respecting the League Covenant.” A succession of five-minute speeches in accordance with the rules followed and the debate was adjourned till the afternoon. Upon the resumption JI. Demonzie, a former Jlinister, attacked JI. Laval,

explaining that “while supporting him after his visits to Jloscow and Rome because he was apparently aiming at collective security I found he was treating international affairs like a suburban election. He negotiated a pact with Russia and when Czechoslovakia and Roumania followed suit he did not ratify the pact.” JI. Picard (Radical Socialist), In a sensational speech, declared that he spoke on behalf of all deputies in the eastern provinces which would be first threatened in the event of war. He referred to Herr Hitler and the menace of German rearmament, adding: We believe effective defence must be accompanied by collective security, lienee Hie closest collaboration with England and other nations who still have confidence in us is essential. That is why I reject JI. Laval’s policy. The speech ended in uproar, deputies slamming desk-lids so continuously that the meeting was suspended for 20 minutes. JI. Laval Replies. When it was resumed the crowded chamber, with ill-concealed impatience, awaited M. Laval, who delivered what is regarded as Ins finest exposition of foreign affairs during office. Ho affirmed his faithfulness to the League Covenant, and denied failure to carry out undertakings by France which pinned her faith to international co-operation. He added that French policy was security entirely based on the League on which the treaties of Locarno, the agreement with the Little Entente and all other understandings reposed.

“I might have followed the example of the majority of members of the League and done nothing before, the Italo-Abvssinian hostilities began ” he said. “On the contrary. I examined, with Sir Samuel Hoare and Jlr. Eden, the grave situation in the event of hostilities although we set aside all that might lead to war, Including milltarv sanctions, a naval blockade

and the closing of the Suez Canal. Economic and financial sanctions were contemplated and the Committee of Coordination conceived. It was not France which turned down certain sanctions when a time limit was raised. Franco suggested four days. Moreover, France has loyally and strictly applied sanctions. I do not raise the question whether it has been the same everywhere.” “My Conscience is Clear.” Referring to the peace proposals. JI. Laval explained that he and Sir Samuel Hoare decided before contemplation of grave sanctions to attempt conciliation, but the League did not accept the plan. The House of Commons had not understood France’s loyalty to the League. “Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. I have not compromised AngloFrench relations.” He added: “At present there is no question of oil sanctions as it depends on the United States where Congress will not decide before January 15, while the League Council meets on January 20. I promise to consult the Chamber regarding oil sanctions when the time comes. “France has been blamed for not moving a man or ship to assist England, but such a question was not raised at the League Council, which was essential under Article Sixteen. .Meanwhile, unfortunately, newspaper articles about Italian troop movements in Libya aroused anxiety in England, resulting in Britain asking whether France was ready to support her. I am now told I gave an assurance, but. nevertheless let it be understood that France would not respect the undertaking.” He added amid cheers: “I could accept such an insult for myself, but not for my country.” Communications of this nature were usually not revealed to Parliament because they were the concern of the General Staff, but. after the Anglo-French political agreement of October .18, the British and French Admiralties began conversations which now extended on December 9 and 10 to the military and air staffs.” JI. Laval, amid resounding cheers, declared: “It is painful to make these revelations. I was sufficiently frank to keep Italy informed of the AngloFrench conversations and I also informed Signor Jlussolini at the outbreak of hostilities what would be France’s attitude. France alone of 54 States has taken these technical measures.” Value of Co-operation. After re-emphasising the- value of Franco-British co-operation, JI. Laval continued: “I was always most, confident of the relations of Sir Samuel Hoare and Jlr. Eden in Anglo-French affairs. JI. Blum reproached me for warning Italy too late, contending that war would not have occurred if I had affirmed France's fidelity to the Covenant, but as long ago as July we drew Signor Jlussolini’s attention to French embarrassment in the event of hostilities, while in August and October I repeated that France would respect, her engagements with the League. Jloreover, in August, with Britain, I suggested substantial bases of conciliation which Signor Jlussolini did not accept. France will continue to apply sanctions, but I shall continue, while not breaking the Covenant, to pursue conciliation.” (Cheers.) France and Germany. Turning to Franco-German relations JI. Laval declared: “Without a FrancoGerman rapprochement there is no guarantee of European peace, but such a rapprochement must be under a collective organisation of security. I recall that my last words to Sir Samuel Hoare when he was leaving me at Paris were: ‘lf this conciliation succeeds, what horizons open for French and British co-operation 1 We could try to bring Germany back into collective security.’ I also recall three hours of moving conversation with General Goering, whom I met at Jlarshal Pilsudski’s funeral, regarding the removing of obstacles to a rapprochement. Ido not wish any word uttered making such an understanding more difficult.” JI. Laval, replying to JI. Demonzie, referred to the communique issued after Herr Hitler’s conversation with the French Ambassador, in which it was denied that the Franco-Soviet pact was directed against Germany, and added: “The pact is not a military alliance, but, like all other diplomatic arrangeinents I made, it is in the spin and letter of the League.” NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS EXPECTED YET Sir E. Drummond -Leaves Rome on Holiday (Received December 29, 6.30 p.m.) London, December 28. The Rome correspondent of “The Tinies” says that the British Ambassador, Sir Eric Drummond’s, departure today for three weeks’ holiday in England is regarded as a definite indication that no new developments are expected in the immediate future. The same view is also held In wellinformed Italian quarters, where it :s stated that no important political events are likely to occur before the middle of January.

OFFER OF AIR FORCES Russia and Poland Likely to Act London, Deceralier 27. The “Daily Herald” expects , that Russia and Poland will shortly intimate their readiness to place their formidable air forces at the disposal of the League in conformity with Article 16 of the Covenant.