LAVAL ON TRIAL

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 155, 28 December 1935, Page 12

LAVAL ON TRIAL

DRAMATIC SCENES

DEBATE IN CHAMBER

GOVERNMENT'S FATE

HANGING IN THE BALANCE

CnlUd Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received December 28, 2 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. Leon Blum was less damaging than v was anticipated, but even so he urged M. Laval's dismissal. M. Y. Delbos's speech, .which M. , Herriot punctuated with nods of approval, was considered to be decisive. M. Laval's chances of survival were decreasing with every word M. Delbos uttered. He spoke like a Judge. M. Laval was listening stonily, except for an occasional ironic smile. The "Manchester Guardian's" Paris correspondent says: "When M. Delbos recognised M. Laval's good intentions to the extent of crediting him with' a desire for peace it was as if he strewed flowers on M. Laval's grave." Other commentators pay tribute to the amazing oratorical triumph of M. Paul Reynaud, who rose from a sickbed to deliver his speech, and it was generally felt that had a vole been taken immediately after the Government would have fallen. The Paris correspondent of the "News-Chronicle" declares that M. Laval's losing rearguard action was almost a complete rout. .M. 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 Mussolini at Pontinia and not by M. 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." M. Blum said that Mr. Stanley Baldwin had profited by Sir Samuel Hoare's generous and courageous resignation, but M. Laval did not have that resource inasmuch as he was both Premier and Foreign Minister. 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. M. 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 re-arma-ment of Germany, to oppose which there must be either a coalition of forces or disarmament. A FrancoItalian alliance would not avert the danger. M. Blum concluded with a direct demand for M. Laval's overthrow. The Left volleyed applause, the Right hooted, and the Centre remained silent. SECURITY AT STAKE. 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 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 ta secure peace to impose the law ol Geneva more than ever. FRIEND OF BRITAIN. . M. 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 sacrific everything for Italy's friendship. The British people's revolt was one of the most magnificent events in British history. Oar answer is dictated by England's cry, 'Halt the aggressor.' France must heed that cry." The debate was adjourned.