The Times | 21 Dicembre 1935

Hard Thinking In Paris IROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDEN-T PARIS, DEC. 20 For Press and public alike yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons has proved of absorbing interest. Not a word of the unusually full reports published here escapes a keenly critical examination. On one thing there is general agreement, accompanied by resentment or regret according to belief in its truth. It is that the main line of the British Government’s defence was French reiuctance to honour the pledge of mutual assistance contained in Paragraph 3, Article X\Vl., of the Covenant. It would be hard to say wvhich of the two main speeches attracts greater attention. For while Sir Samuel Hoare’s declaration throws a greater light on the motives which inspired him to agree to M. Laval’s proposals, Mr. Baldwin’s utter- ance is taken to reveal the trend of future British policy.The general impression is that Sir Samuel Hoare emerged from his ordeal with greater success than Mr. Baldwin, while even those who most fiercely opposed the Hoare-Laval plan regard the manner of the late Foreign Secretary’s defence as a lesson in candour and dignity. Over the validity of his explanation there is comnplete disagreement. On one side his arguments are accepted as com- pletely satisfactory; on the other various points for criticism are raised. Sir Samuel. it is felt, explained clearly enough his reasons for failing to press for an oil embargo, but said nothing to justify approval of M. Laval’s proposals as a de- sirable alternative. Moreover, it is noted that after declaring that M. Laval himself did not like many features of his own plan Sir Samuel added that the sugges- tions as sent forward formed the minimum basis upon which the French Government were prepared to proceed. Critics of M. Laval are quick to declare that his policy up to date has shown complete indiffer- ence about the methods by which the con- flict may be limited or ended. “NOT A SHIP MOVD ” But by far the most vital passage of his speech to the French reader is his state- ment that whereas Great Britain has taken certain military precautions ” not a ship, not a machine, not a man has been moved by any other member-State.” Sir Samuel prefaced this remark by saying that he did not wish to make any complaint or recrimination against any member-State in the past. Nevertheless his observation is taken as applying above all to France. There has been a sharp reaction to the implied reproachl in more than one quarter. It is admitted that M. Laval was not prepared to support either an oil embargo or its consequences unless Signor Mlussolini were first otfered a basis of negotiation anLd rejected it. But it is strenuouslv denied that he ever hinted or gave the impr-ession that his previous assurances of Frenich support should Great Britain be attacked weere invalid. It shouid be noted that there is no dis- position to deny the strict accuracy of Sir Samuel’s renmark. But it is claimed th.at if France has not moved a ship, a Machine, or a man, it has been with the fult consent and understanding of the British Government once the difficulties had been explained. The chief factor in French reluctance to follow the British example in the Mediterranean has been the fact that any active preparation for emergencies to be effective would require at least a partial mobilization. The Navy, it is true, is largely manned by serving ratings, but the coastal defences are almost entirely dependent upon reservists. Simi- larly, wide-scale military preparations would necessitate the calling up of reservists. The effect of this, it was felt, would have been disastrous, both at home and abroad-fresh tension in the inter- national sphere and violent internal dissension. M. LAVAL’S PROSPECTS M. Laval returned from Geneva early this morning. He was received at the Gare de Lyon by many of his Cabinet colleagues, and Sir George Clerk, the British Ambassador, who had gone there to meet Mr. Eden, also greeted him. The prospects of the Government have improved since yesterday. With the return of M. Laval to Paris the wave of criticism of his policy which swept through the Parliamentary lobbies yester- day began to subside and the voices of his supporters were to be heard urging the contrary view. This was usually to the effect that the debate in the House of Commons and Signor Mussolini’s speech at Pontinia showed how real the dangers of the present situation were, and that it was more than ever desirable that French policy should be in the hands of such a moderate and cool-headed person as M. Laval rather than in those of some sanctionist ” fanatics.” M. Laval said this morning that he had no intention of resigning; and this state- ment, together with the verbal counter- attack in the lobbies of the Chamber, pro- duced a certain change of atmosphere. Signor Cerruti, the Italian Ambassador, called upon M. Laval at the Quai d’Orsay this evening. Official circles refuse all information about the meeting. HARD THINKING IN PARIS PLEDGE OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE