A PARIS-MIDI INVESTIGATION
Dissolution of the Chamber?

We know that the Senate Finance Committee is imposing profound amendments to the budget law passed by the Chamber. When the amended law returns to the Palais-Bourbon, it is generally assumed that fierce debates will ensue.
If the Senate and the Chamber remain unwavering in their positions, or if the health of the Prime Minister forces him to relinquish power, what possibilities should be considered?

1. A concentrated cabinet? Supported by what majority?
2. If the left wing of the Chamber remains strong enough to overthrow the cabinet thus constituted, will dissolution be necessary?
3. What are the advantages and risks of a dissolution?

These are the questions we posed to our interlocutors.

Mr. P.-E. Flandin
Mr. P.-E. Flandin possesses a rare gift in Parliament; a rigorous intellectual discipline that allows him to dismiss irrelevant matters and illusions without hesitation. In the embrasure of a window in Les Pas-Perdus, he leans his slim figure toward me; from his first words, he sets the problem:

If the Herriot Cabinet falls for health reasons, nothing changes! The Cartel remains in power, and a new Herriot Cabinet without Herriot emerges from it.
If the current government falls for political reasons, it represents a repudiation of the Cartel's policies, that is, the rise to power of a cabinet of concentration.
If the left wing of the Chamber, with reinforcements perhaps recruited from the far right, overthrows the new combination, it means dissolution.
And why should this dissolution frighten us? Why would it carry risks? Is it going beyond the bounds of the Constitution to resort to one of its fundamental articles? In a democracy, appealing to the country is not tantamount to staging a coup d'état.

Mr. Alexandre Varenne
Mr. Alexandre Varenne is the godsend of journalists. Affable with those who share his ideas, slightly ironic with others, he rejects none. My question stopped him on the threshold of the Palais-Bourbon, which he was leaving after a hot day. His hand straying into the black beard that framed his robust features, he replied:

I refuse to consider the possibility of a dissolution, much less a change of government. The previous Chamber was not dissolved, and yet it was in conflict with the Senate, especially in 1923-24, on almost every essential point of its policy. Why would we dissolve it, whose broad political lines are the same as those of the majority in the Upper House?

Mr. André François-Poncet
There is in the person of the deputy from Paris a curious mixture of stiffness and cordiality, of distant conciseness and amiable finesse. During the suspension of a session where the chamber had transformed into a ring, we met him, always calm and unaffected. With a sibylline smile curling his lips, and a hint of a cavalier mustache, he declared to us:

Mr. Herriot has addressed an agonizing appeal to the country for unity; he has asked us for a truce of the franc; it is not only the truce of the franc that must be achieved, but the truce of France. Can his policies and his cabinet give us this truce? That is the question.
What I have always maintained in my papers is the need to call upon a cabinet in which all parties would be represented. No need for dissolution! A government of national unity, that's all. There is a difficult hurdle to cross; The crossing will last six months or more. Once the bad times have passed, each party regains its freedom and we return to the parliamentary game. But what this government of national unity must give the country is the assurance that it will fight against:
1. The financial threat; 2. The external threat; 3. The communist threat.

Mr. Pierre Renaudel
His head buried under a large felt hat, his gaze watchful behind the glasses of his glasses, his shoulders rounded, bowed under an invisible weight, Mr. Renaudel replied to me:
I do not want to consider at any price the hypotheses you put forward; there cannot be a dissolution; there is a coherent majority in this House that knows what it is doing, that responds to the wishes of the country. I will add that I am in no way intimidated by the attitude of the Senate. I am certain it will give in; and it must give in; we will not sacrifice any of the articles of the finance law to it. We will make no concessions to him, you understand, no concessions."

We will make it our duty to continue these discussions in a future article.

Georges Suarez.