§ Mr. PROTHEROasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether possession of an armlet by a man who, since 14th August, 1915, has been duly certified as unfit for military service on account of organic disease, renders the possessor more or less liable for service in some capacity than a man who, in precisely similar circumstances, has not applied for and obtained an armlet?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe fact that a man has offered himself for enlistment and been 1065W rejected since 14th August, 1915, excepts him from the operation of the Act. If he has a certificate to this effect in proper form he is not liable. The possession of an armlet in addition does not affect the question of liability under the Act.