MURDERER'S CHILD

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8355, 15 February 1913, Page 7

MURDERER'S CHILD

NOT ALLOWED TO MAEET SWEETHEAET. SOCIAL PROBLEM. HOME SBCEBTAEY REFUSES CONDEMNED MAN'S ’APPEAL. LONDON* January 5. The question whether a condemned murderer should be alowed to marry the woman of whose unborn child he is the father has arisen in the case of John Williams,, who was sentenced to death for the murder of Police-inspector Wall* at Eastbourne. He appealed for permission to marry Florence Seymour,' hi* sweetheart, who gave evidence on his behalf at his trial. The Home Office ha* decided that he cannot marry., Florence Seymour, • whom Williams wished to marry, and who was specially desirous of marrying him, gave birth to a child, a girl, at her lodgings in London on Sun day night. At the trial of her lover, this woman, aged only twenty-one years, was a pathetic witness. During the ordeal of speaking fo rthe life of the father of her unborn child she persisted in referring to him as “my husband," although they were not married. After the death sentence, Mr Justice Channell said he had no objection to the young woman having an interview with Williams. Subsequently Williams, through the prison chaplain, appealed to the Home Secretary for permission to marry Miss Seymour in time to save her child the shame of illegitimacy. Was the child to sutler all the legal consequences of such a, state and to grow up fatherless f Or should Miss Seymour become Mrs Williams and her child be thereby branded as the daughter of a murderer? That wae the problem before Mr McKenna, the Home Secretary. Williams s letter was an earnest plea for marriage. He wrote: — X want to marry my girl, Florence Sevmour, before her child is born. Will you give permission P If you do it will have to be given forthwith. The Home Office answer came almost by return of post. It was a curt refusal and stated; — I am inreceipt of your letter, and am unable to accede to the request therein contained. Williams wrote to Miss Seymour an affectionate letter, addressing her, os in all his letters, “My own darling wife." In an interview Miss Seymour said : “I would marry him to-morrow, even if he was put to death afterwards. He is the only man I have ever loved. Why cam not we be married? She would have had a father," she said, looking tearfully at the infant by her side. Mr W. H. Speed, solicitor for Williams, stated that one argument in. favour of the marriage was that there is a possibility of a sum of money comine to Williams, or in the event of his decease to any heir or heiress. “Isn't it better that the child should be known os the legitimate child of a murderer rather than illegitimatef In any case, the name of tne father will bo known.'' William’s appeal against hie conviction will he heard on January 11th. PUBLIC OPINION DIVIDED. The refusal of the Home secretary U sanction tne marriage nas given rise to much discussion as to waotnei H i better tor hiodcuce Seymour s child to oe illegitimate, or to have a legal lacne. even though the latter is a couvicve.. murderer. Public op.nicn on cue qu.s tiou is divided. In an interview an ei Home Office official was empnatic tna. the proper course had been taaen. " meat aeal depends, - ',he remained, “o;. what course the cuiidi will take uuougr lire. In many cases iliegirimatcy is n, disadvantage, but to be uraudea as tilson. or dauguter. oi a supposed murdete. is more than a drawback.” Mr Tnoma.Holmes, tne secretary of the Howaro Association, took tne same view. ’"X’neiv is a great deal too macs sentiment nowadays." be said, ."and I have known 01 manv cases where an offer of marriage has come from the dock in the nope o. minimising the sentence, or escaping punishment altogether. In this case it would have been the height of folly to have 'allowed the marriage. Better fa; for the child to go through life as an illigitimate. as this circumstance will be forgotten in a few years' time, and after all it is no fault of the infant’s." “Most certainly the request should be

refused.” said Dr Forbes. Winslow, the well-known mental expert. "1 am opposed to it on three grounds. If the man ami woman are permitted to marry, tin- child will have as an acknowledged H-iher a man convicted of murder. The information cannot bo kept from it, t>t fiom other people. If, on the Other hand, marriage is not peimitted, the child need never know who. cir what, its father was. nor need other people know." A similar view was taken by the Kev. A. J. Waldron, vicar of Hrtxtou. "The action was fatten by the Hume Secretary." he said, "was. I think, perfectly justified. No doubt the desire on the part of the girl for marriage was a purely sentimental one. Hut the world is getting wiser than it used to be as to its tieatmeut of illegitimate children. There should never be o chance of an illegitimate child being treated differently Irom any other. Personally, 1 should think it better to be an illegitimate rather than to claim the legal parentage of a condemned murderer under such conditions. On the broad humanitarian ground. I think the Home Secretary acted rightly." The Kev. Frank Swaiuson, the wellknown vicar of St. Barnabas, Holloway, whose ministrations have often been gratefully received by prisoners at Pentouvillo, was emphatic in his disagreement with the course followed by the 1 Home Office. "If the man nad woman came to mo.” ho said. "1 would many them at once. They ought to do all In ; *;? their power to rectify the wrong they did. and I don’t think it the right policy at all for the Home Office to place any hindrance in their way. 1 don’t see why' j >ermission should not have Been given. A prison chaplain has a good deal of power os a rule, hut in the case of a condemned man even a prison governor would not take the responsibility on his shoulders of permitting such a ceremony without the assent of the Home Office. At the same time the circumstances seem to me to have justified stretching a point In prison regulations." ItEV. F. B. MEYEIi’S VIEWS. The Eev. F. B. Meyer, of Regent'* Park Chapel, ie of the same opinion. "in my -wildest dreams." he said, *'l have never found myself installed in the Home Office, and am not acquainted with the unwritten laws that determine a Homo Secretary’s action, but I thing U 1 had been called on to decide 1 should nave certainly allowed John Williams and Florence Seymour to marry. She had been true to him to death, and it would have been a ray of comfort to the girl to have been able to feel that,she was honourably married and that her babe bad been as far as possible legilrmatised. Cannot this last happiness still be granted to this unhappr pairf” it is not without interest to know that Che prison chaplain was willing to perform the marriage ceremony for William* and Seymour, who. before the birth of her child a few days ago. paid several visits to her lover in gaol. The final decision, however, rested with Mr Me- ' Kenna. The girl is now seriously ill, and in a destitute condition. Williams has written many affecting letters from gaol expressing contrition for the wrong no has dona Seymour, and earnestly de- ■ siring to make reparation by marriage. ‘ The refusal of the Home Secretary, judging by the tone of his letters, seems to 6e preying on his mind. A fact w'hiob was not disclosed at the ' trial was that Williams was an assumed name. He is the son of a Scottish minister, and the news of the crime fot wnich he has been sentenced hoe been concealed from his parents.