THE COLONIST. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY.-NOVEMBER 30, 1912. INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERALISM.

Colonist, Volume LIV, Issue 13277, 30 November 1911, Page 2

THE COLONIST. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY.-NOVEMBER 30, 1912. INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERALISM.

Mil Atmore took a great deal for granted.on Tuesday night when he claimed that the very large audience which assembled to hoar him was evidence of a popular bolief that his attitude is satisfactory. There is rot the slightest doubt that a very lar.Te portion of the audience, possibly the larger portion, attended to hear Mr Atmore vindicate his consistency f.nd explain his position, and they mist have been greatly dissatisfied nith ';iq I substance of what he had to toll Uvni ! Not only did he not volunteer . <<c information the electors are entitled to possess, but questioners failed to drag it from him^ being parried in a most shameless manner. If Mr Atmoi'e were really what he professes to be, an Independent Liberal, what conceivable reason could there be for his not giving a straightforward answer to a question designed to elicit his attitude in the event of •■> no-confidence motion being in trod <i ;od on tho Government's administration? What other conclusion is possible (nan that the implacable hatred of the Government and the Liberal Party betrayed by the whole of Mr Atmorj's speech would on such an occasion find a means of expression F As we said yesterday, Mr Atmore made n.> somous attempt to reply to our cntlium of his altered politics. True, <ie denies that his views have undergo 10 any change, but the whole weight of the argument is against him. Mr Atmore asks us for proof instead of >piteration of the instability of his politics. Sufficient proof has alivnil.,' been adduced to occasion Mr Atmore and his friends deep concern. We have shown by extracts from his speeches in past campaigns that Mr Atmoi'e's convictions on the party question have undergone a pronounced change. For instance, when he was contesting the 1902 election he held the view that "a man who did not profess a party and adhere to it was an independent anomaly in Parliament, a censor and a critic of botji parties, and would bo without the support of either in anything lie brought forward." In 1905 and IDOS also Mr Atmoro was still a party mr.fi. and the party he professed was th<: Liberal Party. ?n the present contc: t he claims to occupy the position he previously -stigmatised as anomalous, but his bitter attacks upon the Government, and his adoption of tlio policy of the Opposition indicato a right-about-face movement which Mr Atmoro will noitlier explain nor admit. Therefore the electors must draw their own conclusions, and the only possible conclusion is that Mr Atmore has revoked his previous convictions and is now an Oppositionist, for obvious reasons endeavouring lo conceal the fact under the guise a Independent-Liberalism. Mr Atmore has made no attempt to throw ligiu on tho singular coincidences we men tioned on Tuesday. The fact that tin Opposition Party is not lending itfc countenance to tho candidature of either of tho declared Opposition candidates is significant, as is also thf zealous if somewhat indiscreet support Mr Atmore is receiving from our Conservative contemporary. The inclusion of his name in the list of official Opposition candidates has not been cleared up, and Mr Atmore's whole-hearted condemnation of the Government and silence where the Opposition is concerned is no moiv consistent with independence than it is with Liberalism. The generally accepted definition of an Independent Liberal is a Liberal who, reserving ,i general independence of action, would vote always with his part} when its interests were at stake. This is the perfectly | intelligiblo attitude adopted bj Mr I Moffatt, which Mr Atmore, however, affects to find incomprehensible. What | course the latter would pursue in similar circumstances he declines to say, but the inference, as w© have al- ! ready remarked, is obvious. We notice with regret that Mr Atmore still misrepresents Mr Macmahon's attitude on the land question by asserting that he has declared his willingness to vote against his own beliefs if voting for them would injure the party. Mr Macmahon at his first meeting in the city declared his belief in tho optional tenure policy of tho Government, which, he said, was the best possible policy. When' ho was asked how he would vote on a motion to apply tho principle of the freehold to Crown lands, Mr Macmanon replied that if it became a question of putting the present Administration out and the Opposition in power he would vote, for the Government. Mr Macmahon's position as a Liberal candidate is perfectly rational and straightforward, and by it Mr Atmoro merely succeeds in emphasising tho weakness of its own cast.