§ MR. DEVLIN (Belfast, W.)To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the late Mr. D. J. Long, sorter at the South-Western District Post Office, London, was brought before the postmaster, Mr. Carew, on a discipline charge, on or about 21st February last, and was excused on the ground of ill-health; that, before Mr. Long saw Dr. Brabant on 28th February, he informed his colleagues that he was in a state of collapse, and, in anticipation of his obtaining sick leave, another officer had been told off to perform his duty, and that, notwithstanding this, Dr. Brabant told him that sick leave would do him no good; will he explain why Dr. Brabant did not examine Mr. Long on 28th February, or why, having failed to examine him, he refused to accept a private doctor's certificate with regard to his condition, or why he sent him back to duty on 28th February; whether Mr. Long was under any disability owing to technical irregularities in the matter of visits of private doctors; and whether Dr. Brabant had received any papers with reference to Mr. Long which prejudiced him against that officer.
(Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Mr. Long was brought before the Postmaster at South-Western District on a charge of insubordination; but that officer, being of opinion that ill-health was at the root of Mr. Long's conduct, sent him to the official medical officer on 21st February. There is no evidence that Mr. Long informed his colleagues, before 263 his second visit to the doctor on 28th February, that he was in a state of collapse; and the provision of an officer to perform his duty in case sick leave should be recommended was only the usual measure of precaution taken in such cases. Sick leave was not granted by Dr. Brabant, because there was nothing in Mr. Long's symptoms to indicate that it was essential; and on both occasions Mr. Long himself expressed anxiety to return to work. Dr. Brabant made such examination of Mr. Long as he thought desirable, having regard to his symptoms and appearance; and I see no reason to question the correctness of his treatment of the case. I am advised that no more extended examination would have revealed the approaching hæmoptysis, which could not have been for seen. It is not the case that Dr. Brabant refused to accept a private certificate furnished by Mr. Long. Such a certificate was received on 2nd March, and was returned by Mr. Long's superior officer for amendment in accordance with the rules. Dr. Brabant had nothing to do with its return. I am satisfied that Dr. Brabant was not in any way prejudiced against Mr. Long; and I must express my regret that a public insinuation against a member of the medical profession should be thus made.