LAVAL SURVIVES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18900, 30 December 1935, Page 5

LAVAL SURVIVES

MAJORITY FEWER VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FOREIGN AFFAIRS POLICY PROCEDURE DEFENDED LOYALTY TO LEAGUE (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Reed. Dec. 30. 11.15 a.m.) PARIS, Dee. 29. The Premier of France, M. Laval, in an hour’s speech in the foreign affairs debate in the Chamber of Deputies, answered critics individually and sat down amid great applause.

A vote of confidence in the Govern ment was carried.

Revised official figures show that the vote was 296 to 276 in favor 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 a motion of confidence in the Government to pursue, within the framework of the League, a policy of conciliation and international understanding, lesulted in a vote of 304 to 261.

M. Laval’s victory was due to the Radicals and Centre Republicans meeting in the afternoon and deciding to support the Government. M. Reynaud resigned leadership of the Centre Republicans owing to the party objecting to his speech yesterday, hut observers are still predicting that M. Laval will soon be endangered on domestic issues. A message from Rome says that Italy is pleased with M. Laval’s success, but political circles regard his decreasing naiority as ominous, they realising that if M. Laval goes, Italy will lose a good friend.

The crowded Chamber of Deputies, with ill-concealed impatience, awaited M. Laval, who delivered what is regarded as his first exposition of foreign affairs during his term of office. He affirmed his faithfulness to the League Covenant and denied failure to carry out undertakings by France, which pinned her faith on international co-operation.

M. Laval added that the 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. SANCTIONS APPLIED -STRICTLY

“I might have followed the example of a majority of members of the League,” he said, “and done nothing! before the Italo-Abyssiniau hostilities began. On the contrary, 1 examined with Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Anthony Eden the grave situation in the event of hostilities. Although 1 set aside all that might have led to war, including military sanctions, a naval blockade, the closing of the Suez Canal, and economic and financial sanctions were contemplated by the League Committee of Coordination. It was not France which turned down certain sanctions. When the time limit was raised, France suggested four days. Moreover, France loyally and strictly applied the sanctions. I do not raise the question whether it has been the same everywhere.” Referring to the peace proposals, M. Laval explained that he and Sir Samuel Iloure had decided, before the 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. He added: ‘‘Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. I have not compromised Anglo-French relations.” M. Laval said that, at present, there was not a question of oil sanctions, as that depended on the United States, where Congress would not decide before January 15, while the League Council meets on January 20. He promised to consult the Chamber regarding oil sanctions when the time came. ANXIETY IN ENGLAND France had been blamed for nat moving a man or ship to assist England. But such a question was not raised at the League Council, which was essential under Article XVI of the League Covenant. Meanwhile, unfortunately, newspaper articles about Italian troop movements in Libya had aroused anxiety in England, resulting in Britain asking whether France was ready to support her, “I am now told,” he said, “that I gave an assurance, but nevertheless, lot it. be understood that France would not respect the undertaking.”

Communications of this nature were usually' not revealed in Parliament, because they were the concern of the General Staff, but, after the Anglo-French political agreement of October 18, the British and French began conversations which extended on December 9 and 10 to military and air staffs. M. Laval, amid resounding cheers, declared : “It is painful to make these revelations. I was sufficiently frank to keep Italy informed of the Anglo-French conversations* I also informed Signor Mussolini at the-outbreak of hostilities what would be France’s attitude. France alone of the 54 States has taken these technical measures.”

After re-emphasising the value of Frnnco-Britisli co-operation, M. Laval continued: “I always was'most confident of the relations of Sir Samuel Iloare and Mr. Anthony Eden in Anglo-French affairs. CONCILIATION ENDEAVOR “M. Blum has reproached me for warning Italy too late, contending that the war would not have occurred if I had affirmed France’s fidelity to the Covenant. But as long ago as July, we drew Signor Mussolini’s attention to the French-embarrassment in the event, of hostilities, while in August and October, I repeated that France would respect her engagements With the. League. “Moreover, in August, with Britain, 1 Suggested substantial bases of conciliation which Signor Mussolini did not accept. France will continue to apply ■sanctions, but I shall continue, while not breaking the Covenant, to pursue conciliation.” (Cheers). M. Laval, referring to the British Government’s “declaring as dead the proposals Sir Samuel Iloare drew up,” added that Abyssinia was shocked by the sacrifice it would have had to accept. The Italian Government had not examined the suggestions with the diligence and comprehension which those interested had a right to expect. Moreover, a certain speech (which the London Times and other newspapers indicate was Signor Mussolini’s Pontinia address, not M. Ilerriot’s) did not make the tusk easier.

These events raised grave issues which it was his duty to explain. He added,, . regarding assistance to

Britain: “In order to dispel misunderstanding, I publicly renew the declaration made to the Ambassador and Sn Samuel Hoare.”

Turning to Franco-Abyssinian relations, M. Laval declared that without a Franco-German rapprochement there was no guarantee of European peace, but such a rapprochement must be under n collective organisation of security.

“I recall,” ho said, “that rny last words to Sir Samuel Hoare when he was leaving me in Paris were ‘lf this conciliation succeeds, what horizons are open for French and British co-opera-tion? We could try to bring Germany back into tho collective security.’

“I also recall a three hours’ moving conversation with General Goering, who met me at Marshal Pilsudski’s funeral, regarding removing obstacles to rapprochement. I do not wish any word uttered to make such an understanding more difficult-.”

M. Laval, replying to M. Demonzie, referred to the communique issued after Herr Hitler’s conversation with the French Ambassador, in which he denied a Franco-Soviet pact directed against Germany. lie added : “The pact is not a military alliance, but, like all other diplomatic arrangements I made, is in the spirit and letter of the League.”