604

A.—s

may only have five votes, the representatives of any other colony can be present and take part in the discussion at the Conference as a British delegate. But I would like to put this as strongly as 1 can that the actual voting is really not very material. The material thing is the influence and power of those representing Great Britain and its colonies, and also the ability of the delegates. At this wireless telegraphy conference last time we only had one vote. We had on the whole a hostile majority against us, but in consequence of the attitude we took up and the very admirable handling of the matter by the British delegates, we really turned that convention topsy-turvy. We obtained every single point we wanted, and made the convention as we now believe a convention very satisfactory from the national point of view and the Admiralty point of view; wdiereas, as it stood it was very unsatisfactory and we should not have agreed to it. We only had one vote at that time and all the other Powers one vote; so we were in an absolute minority, and it was really more moral strength than voting strength. Mr. DEAKIN : But was not that due to the circumstances that British predominance in wireless telegraphy is so marked, the situation of the Empire is so special, and the opportunities it affords for wireless telegraphy so much greater, that you only had to step out of the Conference and it would have practically fallen to pieces ? Mr. BUXTON : No, it would have gone through anyhow. Mr. DEAKIN : Besides that, is not there a great difference between the Postal Union, with its exchange of services, and its absolute necessity for joint action throughout the world, and the present condition of wireless telegraphy which has taken great developments only in this Empire, where it plays an important part with the navy i The system is being extended to some of its dominions, and will he extended to others. What gain corresponding to those, which are obvious in the case of the Postal Union, is there in establishing a Union for wireless telegraphy while one member is so far immensely superior to the others? What are we to gain? Are we not accepting a limitation of a power we at present enjoy without an equivalent advantage ? Mr. BUXTON : That raises the whole question of the merits of the Convention, which is now before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and opens out a very big question. I hold strongly the view that while it is perfectly true that we are in a dominant position in regard to wireless telegraphy at the present time, it is to our advantage to have intercommunication between the various systems, and it is to our disadvantage to have a particular system in this country, the predominating system, which refuses to inter-communicate. lam speaking specially from the naval point of view as well as the commercial point of view. The best method in which wireless telegraphy can be developed (and it is to our advantage to have it developed) is by means of an International Convention which will introduce free inter-communication, though subject to exemption of any stations which we think are better exempted. International regulation will tend to prevent confusion and interference which is really the evil of wireless telegraphy. Unless you have very carefully drawn regulations and power to enforce them, the difficulty is to prevent confusion and interference and to make the best use of the invention. The advantage to us in having an International Cnvention is that you bring all these different systems and different countries under an obligation not only to lnter-com-municate which is to our commercial advantage, but also to carry out these

Fifteenth Day. 14 May 1907.

Wireless Telegraphy. (Mr. Buxton.)