The Times | 23 Gennaio, 1936

Fall Of French Cabinet FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT PARIS JAN. 22 The existence of the Laval Govern- ment came to its expected end to-day. At a Cabinet meeting held at the Quai d’Orsay this afternoon M. Herriot and three other Radical Ministers-M. Paganon (Interior), M. Bonnet (Commerce), and M. Bertrand (Merchant Marine)-handed their letter of resignation to M. Laval. The other two Radical Ministers, M. Regnier (Finance) and M. Maupoil (Pensions) had refused to sign the letter. M. Laval then went to the Elysee, accompanied by his colleagues, and placed the collective resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the President. M. Lebrun immediately asked M. Laval to form another Ministry, and M. Laval declined to do so. Later in the evening M. Bouisson, the President of the Chamber, also declined to form a Government. After his resignation M. Laval issued a statement for publication which the Radicals will find difficult to answer. It reads as follows:- I have handed the resignation of the Cabinet to thc

President of the Republic, and I hav_ declined his proposal that I slhould form anothcr Ministry. I did not seek power: I accepted it last June as a *duty to my country. I believc that I have fulfilled my mission. The franc, which I was appointed to defend, is intact. Thc Budget, diminished by one-fiftlh, has been passed. The measures taken in every direction are beginning to bear fruit, and thc first signs of a recovery of industrial and agri- cultural activity are apparent. In the course of the debates in Parliamcnt the divisions between Frenchmien were appeased. Wc saw the dawn of national reconciliation. During the last few months, in the foreign field, grave diflicultics appeared. Peace was main- tained; our obligations to the League were carried out; our fricndslhips and our alliances werc kept intact; the independence of our foreign policy was assured and rcinforced. That is our record. Francc remains mistress of her destinies. Successively and on evcry point our policy reccived the approval of the French Parliament. Last week, in a vote of confidence on general policy, the majority which had declared itself was increased. However hard was my task, I slhould have carried it on, but a new political situation prevents mc. The maintcnance of a close union between parties was tllc essential condition of my action. That indispensable cooperationl is no longer possible. A party has seen fit to rorbid its representatives in the Cabinet to practise it. Now that I withdraw, I think I may be allowed to ask all in the present circumstances to givc us the necessary cxample of calm, -coolness, and unity. RADICAL MOTIVES In their letter of resignation the Radical Ministers drew M. Laval’s attention to the resolution passed by their executive committee on Sunday. They said that they were impelled by fidelity to their party and honesty towards M. Laval to hand him their resignation. They could no longer secure for him the support of their friends which he would require in order to keep a majority in the Chamber. The Radical Ministers were careful not to mention the real issue between them- selves and M. Laval, which was that of foreign policy. Apart from the growing restlessness of their followers at the approach of the elections, the real motive for which the Radicals broke up the Ministry was their desire to drive M. Laval from the Quai d’Orsay. Their action may seem laudable to themselves and to all who, like M. Blum and his Socialist followers, are not to be dissuaded from the belief that M. Laval is the real villain of the Italo-Abyssinian war. They do not believe, as others who have discussed the matter personally with him do, that he did not give Signor Mussolini a “free hand ” in Abyssinia; and they probably do not know that since the Pontinia speech M. Laval has not once been in telephonic communication with Rome. The Radicals look forward to a Cabinet of ‘ appeasement ” formed to reverse M. Laval’s foreign policy and in other depart- ments to carry on quietly until the elcc- tions. But it is difficult to avoid the impression that their action, even if well- meant, has been both climsy and ill- timed. In their own interest they should either have left the Cabinet directly after the fall of Sir Samuel Hoare (for which they hold M. Laval responsible) or have accommodated themselves to the presence of M. Laval until the last possible moment before the elections. FALL OF FRENCH CABIN’ET RADICAL DEFECTION SEARCH FOR NEW PRIME MINISTER