Selborne's 1926 defence of engineering officers

The quoted House of Lords speech separates pre-1902 engineers, common-entry officers, and engineers covered by the 1922 modification. Each group had a different route into military status, but all believed a later Admiralty order had created a real grievance. Selborne argues that common entry and equal status were central, while complete interchangeability remained an experiment for later boards to decide from experience. He contrasts the British retreat after wartime experience with the US Navy's continuing system to show that interchangeability was difficult rather than inherently unworkable.