The following is a summary of the estimated resources of the unproved' coalfields of the United Kingdom, at depths not exceeding 4000 feet:

This does not include Gloucester, Somerset, and South Wales, nor the Kent coalfield, which last has yet to be developed; nor perhaps all the undersea coal in Scotland; nor what may be at a greater depth than 4000 feet.

It is now possible to sum up the total coal resources of the United Kingdom in round numbers as follows:

This does not include what coal there may be in the unproved fields at a greater depth than 4000 feet, nor any coal in seams of less than one foot in thickness.

As to the probable duration of our coal resources, that, of course, depends chiefly upon the maintenance or the variation of the annual output. The miscalculations of the Royal Commission of 1871 as to the future exports, and of Mr Stanley Jevons as to the future annual consumption, make the latest Commissioners hesitate to prophesy how long our coal resources are likely to last. The present annual output is, in round numbers, 230,000,000

tons-in 1904 it was 232,401,784 tons; and the calculated available resources in the proved coalfields are, in round numbers, 100,000,000,000 tons, exclusive of the 40,000,000,000 tons in the unproved coalfields, which the Commissioners regard only as probable or speculative. For the last thirty years the average increase in the output has been 2 per cent. per annum, and that of the exports (including bunker coal) 4 per cent. per annum. It is the general opinion of the special District Commissioners of the Royal Commission that, owing to physical considerations, it is highly improbable that the present rate of increase of the output of coal will continue. They think that some districts have already attained their maximum output, but that, on the other hand, the developments in the newer coalfields will probably increase the total output for some years. But they look forward to a time, not far distant, when the rate of increase of output will be slower, to be followed by a period of stationary output, and then a gradual decline.

We confess to a lack of faith in this expectation, and we fear that no trustworthy conclusion can be based upon it. Nevertheless, the Report is reassuring in that it affords a brighter view of the future than has been presented by previous experts. Broadly, it may be stated that, on the facts and opinions now before us, we may assume that we have enough coal to last the country between 400 and 600 years. The margin is wide, because the estimate is conditioned by the possible variations in production and consumption which have been considered above. The end, therefore, is not near. Still, it is appalling to contemplate a time five hundred years hence when the British Isles will be a mass of deserted ruins and the might of the British Empire will have become a fable. We can but lay the flattering unction to our souls that, as the calculations of our available and prospective resources and requirements are based, for the most part, on present circumstances, improved methods and altered conditions may defer indefinitely the evil day of commercial exhaustion and national ruin.

Art. VII.-PREFERENCE IN NEW ZEALAND.*

IN November 1903 the Parliament of New Zealand passed the Preferential and Reciprocal Trade Act.' Under this Act a limited number of the then existing duties was increased from 20 to 50 per cent. (on cement 100 per cent.) as to goods 'not being the produce or manufacture of some parts of the British dominions'; and the only reduction which it effects is the abolition of duty on tea 'grown in any part of the British dominions' imported in packets of more than 1 lb. weight. This Act contains a clause which does not appear to have been generally noticed. Clause 13 reads :

'When any country not being part of the British dominions reduces or abolishes, or proposes to reduce or abolish, the duty on any product or manufacture of New Zealand, the Governor may, subject to or by virtue of a treaty with his Majesty, negotiate with such country for an agreement with that country to reduce or abolish the duty on any article or articles, the produce or manufacture of such country, to an extent that the estimated revenue so remitted shall equal as nearly as possible the estimated revenue remitted by that country: provided that such agreement shall not have effect or be operative until ratified by an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand.'

This clause, if acted upon, would obviously terminate the preference granted to British goods by extending it to like goods of some foreign origin. Nay, it might even occur that under it actual preference would be given to some goods of foreign origin over similar British goods. The suspicion therefore arises that the increase of duties on foreign goods has not been enacted in the interest, still less in the sole interest, of the mothercountry, but in the interest of New Zealand, partly to increase local production, partly as a means of bringing about reciprocal agreements with foreign countries.

This suspicion is confirmed by the utterance of leading supporters. Mr Richard Seddon, Prime Minister, and

* Colonial opinion on the question of Preference was dealt with, so far as Canada and Australia are concerned, in the previous (April) number of this Review. This fragment was then omitted for want of space. For authorities, see Q.R. No. 403.

author of the Act, speaking at Akaroa shortly before its introduction, said :

'At the Conference of Premiers in London it was proposed that a rebate of 10 per cent. should be made on British merchandise carried in a New Zealand ship; but he was afraid it would weigh upon their own struggling industries, and proposed, as a remedy, increasing the tariff on goods from foreign nations. This latter course would not increase imports from the mother-country, but would check imports from alien nations.'

The Hon. J. Rigg, M.L.C., a leading supporter of Mr Seddon's Government, when debating the Preferential and Reciprocal Trade Bill,' said:

'My first and only feeling, on learning the terms of the proposed preferential trade, was one of relief, for the impression came from the Governor's speech that the preference was to be on the lines of that given by Canada. It is not to be expected that New Zealand can compete with many of the manufactures of Great Britain, which are carried on in the slums and in the sweating dens. I am glad to have the opportunity of congratulating the Premier on having altered what was no doubt his original intention, which was to have preferential trade on Canadian lines.'

...

On the same occasion Sir J. A. Cadman, M.L.C., an advocate of real preference by reducing duties in favour of British goods, said :

'It is supposed that we are prepared to make fiscal sacrifices. I very much doubt whether we are prepared to do anything of the kind. The determination we have laid down for ourselves for many years in regard to customs impositions has been one which has involved the most rigid protection for our manufacturers. Against whom, against what country? Why, sir, against England. It is against England that our tariffs have been established.'

No one can doubt Mr Seddon's enthusiasm for the Empire and his attachment to Imperial Preferentialism. Nor can there be any question of his original intention, as pointed out by Mr Rigg, to give a real preference to British goods by reducing duties in their favour. How then can it be explained that he abandoned this intention and passed an Act for which he claims the merit in New Zealand that it will not increase imports from

the mother-country,' while it is represented in the mothercountry that it will very largely increase such imports? As a matter of fact, the truth lies in the middle. The Act may increase British imports to the insignificant extent of 150,000l. to 200,000l. a year. This, however, is not the question. Why did Mr Seddon abandon his intention? Why did he pass an Act which, on his own admission, gives only a sham preference? The answer is, that his protectionist supporters made it clear to him that no real preference would be accepted by them. As the Hon. Mr Cadman admitted, there is no intention on the part of the majority of those who style themselves Preferentialists to give any real preference, to make any fiscal sacrifice, to lower the protective wall which has been erected principally against British goods. In New Zealand, as in Australia, the majority of Preferentialists, including all the active partisans, advocate Preference in the hope that it may keep out foreign goods without materially increasing the import of British goods.

There are in New Zealand honest Preferentialists, and perhaps in somewhat larger numbers than in Australia; nevertheless, they are few compared with the numbers of the population. The farmers take a greater interest in the question than they have so far taken in Australia, and are prepared to reduce local duties in favour of British goods, provided the mother-country accords preferential treatment to the products of their farms and pastures. Of these two sections of Preferentialists, the Protectionists, including the Labour party, are the most powerful; and this section has dictated the policy of the Government. The attitude of the Labour party, however, has recently changed; and it is now hostile to any reciprocal preferential arrangement which would involve the taxation of foodstuffs in Great Britain. Resolutions in this direction have been passed by several Labour unions, the most powerful and pronounced coming from the annual conference of delegates of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Association,' sitting at Wellington. It is as follows :

"That this Conference is of opinion that any preference to be given in the colony to goods produced in Great Britain should be an acknowledgment of the protection afforded by the British Navy, and not with the expectation of any further