The Speech of Polly Baker

Last updated

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin, author of "The Speech of Polly Baker". Benjamin Franklin 1759.jpg
Portrait of Benjamin Franklin, author of "The Speech of Polly Baker".

"The Speech of Polly Baker" (1747) is the fictional story of a woman put on trial in 1747 for having an illegitimate child. She had been convicted five times in the past for this same crime. Each time, she said, the full blame was placed on her shoulders but not the father's. In later versions, the story ends as she is set free and marries one of the magistrates in charge of her trial.

Contents

This story was actually written by Benjamin Franklin as a protest to the unfairness of the early judicial system charging women for having illegitimate children while not charging the fathers, although he did not disclose this until decades later; therefore Polly Baker is one of Franklin's many aliases. Franklin himself had an illegitimate son named William Franklin. See Illegitimacy in fiction.

The Speech of Polly Baker

Preface

The speech of Polly Baker, before a Court of Judicature, at Connecticut near Boston in New England; where she was prosecuted the Fifth Time, for having a Bastard Child: Which influenced the Court to dispense with her Punishment, and induced one of her Judges to marry her the next day.

Polly Baker's speech

May it please the Honourable Bench to indulge me a few Words: I am a poor unhappy Woman; who have no Money to Fee Lawyers to plead for me, being hard put to it to get a tolerable Living. I shall not trouble your Honours with long Speeches; for I have not the presumption to expect, that you may, by any Means, be prevailed on to deviate in your Sentence from the Law, in my Favour. All I humbly hope is, that your Honours would charitably move the Governor’s Goodness on my Behalf, that my Fine may be remitted. This is the Fifth Time, Gentlemen, that I have been dragg’d before your Courts on the same Account; twice I have paid heavy Fines, and twice have been brought to public Punishment, for want of Money to pay those Fines. This may have been agreeable to the Laws; I do not dispute it: But since Laws are sometimes unreasonable in themselves, and therefore repealed; and others bear too hard on the Subject in particular Circumstances; and therefore there is left a Power somewhere to dispense with the Execution of them; I take the Liberty to say, that I think this Law, by which I am punished, is both unreasonable in itself, and particularly severe with regard to me, who have always lived an inoffensive Life in the Neighbourhood where I was born, and defy my Enemies (if I have any) to say I ever wrong’d Man, Woman, or Child. Abstracted from the Law, I cannot conceive (may it please your Honours) what the Nature of my Offence is. I have brought Five fine Children into the World, at the Risque of my Life: I have maintained them well by my own Industry, without burthening the Township, and could have done it better, if it had not been for the heavy Charges and Fines I have paid. Can it be a Crime (in the Nature of Things I mean) to add to the Number of the King’s Subjects, in a new Country that really wants People? I own I should think it rather a Praise worthy, than a Punishable Action. I have debauch’d no other Woman’s Husband, nor inticed any innocent Youth: These Things I never was charged with; nor has any one the least cause of Complaint against me, unless, perhaps the Minister, or the Justice, because I have had Children without being Married, by which they have miss’d a Wedding Fee. But, can even this be a Fault of mine? I appeal to your Honours. You are pleased to allow I don’t want Sense; but I must be stupid to the last Degree, not to prefer the honourable State of Wedlock, to the Condition I have lived in. I always was, and still am, willing to enter into it; I doubt not my Behaving well in it, having all the Industry, Frugality, Fertility, and Skill in Oeconomy, appertaining to a good Wife’s Character. I defy any Person to say I ever Refused an Offer of that Sort: On the contrary, I readily Consented to the only Proposal of Marriage that ever was made me, which was when I was a Virgin; but too easily confiding in the Person’s Sincerity that made it, I unhappily lost my own Honour, by trusting to his; for he got me with Child, and then forsook me: That very Person you all know; he is now become a Magistrate of this County; and I had hopes he would have appeared this Day on the Bench, and have endeavoured to moderate the Court in my Favour; then I should have scorn’d to have mention’d it; but I must Complain of it as unjust and unequal, that my Betrayer and Undoer, the first Cause of all my Faults and Miscarriages (if they must be deemed such) should be advanced to Honour and Power, in the same Government that punishes my Misfortunes with Stripes and Infamy. I shall be told, ’tis like, that were there no Act of Assembly in the Case, the Precepts of Religion are violated by my Transgressions. If mine, then, is a religious Offence, leave it, Gentlemen, to religious Punishments. You have already excluded me from all the Comforts of your Church Communion: Is not that sufficient? You believe I have offended Heaven, and must suffer eternal Fire: Will not that be sufficient? What need is there, then, of your additional Fines and Whippings? I own, I do not think as you do; for, if I thought, what you call a Sin, was really such, I would not presumptuously commit it. But how can it be believed, that Heaven is angry at my having Children, when, to the little done by me towards it, God has been pleased to add his divine Skill and admirable Workmanship in the Formation of their Bodies, and crown’d it by furnishing them with rational and immortal Souls? Forgive me Gentlemen, if I talk a little extravagantly on these Matters; I am no Divine: But if you, great Men, (*) must be making Laws, do not turn natural and useful Actions into Crimes, by your Prohibitions. Reflect a little on the horrid Consequences of this Law in particular: What Numbers of procur’d Abortions! and how many distress’d Mothers have been driven, by the Terror of Punishment and public Shame, to imbrue, contrary to Nature, their own trembling Hands in the Blood of their helpless Offspring! Nature would have induc’d them to nurse it up with a Parent’s Fondness. ’Tis the Law therefore, ’tis the Law itself that is guilty of all these Barbarities and Murders. Repeal it then, Gentlemen; let it be expung’d for ever from your Books: And on the other hand, take into your wise Consideration, the great and growing Number of Batchelors in the Country, many of whom, from the mean Fear of the Expence of a Family, have never sincerely and honourably Courted a Woman in their Lives; and by their Manner of Living, leave unproduced (which I think is little better than Murder) Hundreds of their Posterity to the Thousandth Generation. Is not theirs a greater Offence against the Public Good, than mine? Compel them then, by a Law, either to Marry, or pay double the Fine of Fornication every Year. What must poor young Women do, whom Custom has forbid to sollicit the Men, and who cannot force themselves upon Husbands, when the Laws take no Care to provide them any, and yet severely punish if they do their Duty without them? Yes, Gentlemen, I venture to call it a Duty; ’tis the Duty of the first and great Command of Nature, and of Nature’s God, Increase and multiply: A Duty, from the steady Performance of which nothing has ever been able to deter me; but for its Sake, I have hazarded the Loss of the public Esteem, and frequently incurr’d public Disgrace and Punishment; and therefore ought, in my humble Opinion, instead of a Whipping, to have a Statue erected to my Memory.

Themes and genre

On the surface "The Speech of Polly Baker" appears to be a light-hearted and "amusing story". However, Franklin presents a protest against legislation that punished women for out-of-wedlock sexual relations by imposing fines and whippings while the father of the child went without punishment. Through her use of rhetorical questions to the magistrates, Franklin shows the inequity of the prevailing justice system. [1]

Franklin creates a sympathetic fictional character in Polly Baker. According to literary critic Etta Madden, Baker's assertion that she's worthy of a statue in the town square reflects and mocks "Mather's memorializing of saints in his Magnalia Christi Americana " as well as the execution sermons Puritans espoused to make "lessons of wayward females." Furthermore, Madden explains that Baker's rational speech shows echoes of Anne Hutchinson, although some might not find her speech rational at all. Therefore, Madden argues, the piece shows more complexity than is initially apparent. [2] Another critic (Aldridge) argues that if taken out of the context of American literature, "The Speech of Polly Baker" can be considered as a "universal myth along the lines of Don Juan and Faust." [3]

Publication history

"The Speech of Polly Baker" was first published in April [4] or May 1747 [5] in The Gentleman's Magazine . It was also published in 17 April 1747 edition of the Derby Mercury and 18 April 1747 edition of the Newcastle Courant. In both of these it was presented without comment, leaving the reader to assume it was a genuine court report. The Derby Mercury stated they had the report "from the General and St James's Evening Posts &c, April 16th 1747".

Initially the piece was published anonymously, but in 1905 it was included in The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, although the editor had yet to prove Franklin's authorship. Max Hall, in Benjamin Franklin and Polly Baker: The History of a Literary Deception (1960) proved conclusively that Franklin wrote the piece, a conclusion accepted by scholars. [6]

Related Research Articles

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment regulating forms of punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government. By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil". Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance.

Punishment Imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome

Punishment, commonly, is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behavior that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable. It is, however, possible to distinguish between various different understandings of what punishment is.

Retributive justice Theory of justice based on an offender deserving a proportional punishment

Retributive justice is a theory of punishment that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they suffer in return, and that the response to a crime is proportional to the offence. As opposed to revenge, retribution—and thus retributive justice—is not personal, is directed only at wrongdoing, has inherent limits, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards. Retributive justice contrasts with other purposes of punishment such as deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender.

Hudood Ordinances Part of Pakistans Islamization

The Hudood Ordinances are laws in Pakistan that were enacted in 1979 as part of then military ruler Zia-ul-Haq's "Islamisation" process. It replaced parts of the British-era Pakistan Penal Code, adding new criminal offences of adultery and fornication, and new punishments of whipping, amputation, and stoning to death. After much controversy and criticism parts of the law were extensively revised in 2006 by the Women's Protection Bill.

<i>Zina</i> Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse

Zināʾ (زِنَاء) or zinah is an Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse. According to traditional jurisprudence, zina can include adultery, fornication, prostitution, rape, sodomy, incest, and bestiality.

Common scold Troublesome person in English law

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing and quarrelling with their neighbours. Most punished for scolding were women, though men could be found to be scolds.

Whipping boy

A whipping boy was a boy educated alongside a prince in early modern Europe, who supposedly received corporal punishment for the prince's transgressions in his presence. The prince was not punished himself because his royal status exceeded that of his tutor; seeing a friend punished would provide an equivalent motivation not to repeat the offence. An archaic proverb which captures a similar idea is "to beat a dog before a lion." Whipping was a common punishment of tutors at that time. There is little contemporary evidence for the existence of whipping boys, and evidence that some princes were indeed whipped by their tutors, although Nicholas Orme suggests that nobles might have been beaten less often than other pupils. Some historians regard whipping boys as entirely mythical; others suggest they applied only in the case of a boy king, protected by divine right, and not to mere princes.

The Apology of Socrates, written by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self-defence which Socrates spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BC.

Gorgias is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC. The dialogue depicts a conversation between Socrates and a small group of sophists at a dinner gathering. Socrates debates with the sophist seeking the true definition of rhetoric, attempting to pinpoint the essence of rhetoric and unveil the flaws of the sophistic oratory popular in Athens at the time. The art of persuasion was widely considered necessary for political and legal advantage in classical Athens, and rhetoricians promoted themselves as teachers of this fundamental skill. Some, like Gorgias, were foreigners attracted to Athens because of its reputation for intellectual and cultural sophistication. Socrates suggests that he is one of the few Athenians to practice true politics (521d).

Blackstones ratio Message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence

In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio is the idea that:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Sociology of punishment

The sociology of punishment seeks to understand why and how we punish; the general justifying aim of punishment and the principle of distribution. Punishment involves the intentional infliction of pain and/or the deprivation of rights and liberties. Sociologists of punishment usually examine state-sanctioned acts in relation to law-breaking; why, for instance, citizens give consent to the legitimation of acts of violence.

The Golden Speech was delivered by Queen Elizabeth I of England in the Palace Council Chamber to 141 Members of the Commons, on 30 November 1601. It was a speech that was expected to be addressing some pricing concerns, based on the recent economic issues facing the country. Surprisingly, she revealed that it would be her final Parliament and turned the mode of the speech to addressing the love and respect she had for the country, her position, and the Members themselves. It is the second such speech for which Queen Elizabeth I was noted, the first, the Speech to the Troops at Tilbury, having been given to English forces in preparation for the Spanish Armada's expected invasion. The Golden Speech has been taken to mark a symbolic end of Elizabeth's reign, one which is widely considered one of the Golden Eras of England's history. Elizabeth died 16 months later in March 1603 and was succeeded by her first cousin twice removed, James I.

"Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress" is a letter by Benjamin Franklin dated June 25, 1745, in which Franklin counsels a young man about channeling sexual urges. Due to its licentious nature the letter was not published in collections of Franklin's papers in the United States during the 19th century. Federal court decisions from the mid- to late- 20th century cited the document as a reason for overturning obscenity laws.

Stratford Eyre was an Anglo-Irish soldier and governor of Galway.

Greed Insatiable longing for material or immaterial gain

Greed is an uncontrolled longing for increase in the acquisition or use of material gain ; or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals.

<i>The Law of Nations</i>

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns is a legal treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758.

Daṇḍa is the Hindu term for punishment. In ancient India, punishments were generally sanctioned by the ruler, but other legal officials could also play a part. The punishments that were handed out were in response to criminal activity. In the Hindu law tradition, there is a counterpart to daṇḍa which is prāyaścitta, or atonement. Where as daṇḍa is sanctioned primarily by the king, prāyaścitta is taken up by a person upon his or her own volition. Furthermore, daṇḍa provides a way for an offender to right any violations of dharma that he or she may have committed. In essence, daṇḍa functions as the ruler's tool to protect the system of life stages and castes. Daṇḍa makes up a part of vyavahāra, or legal procedure, which was also a responsibility afforded to the king.

The Busy-Body (pen name)

The Busy-Body was a pen name used by Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Breintnall in a column printed in The American Weekly Mercury, an early American newspaper founded and published by Andrew Bradford. There are 32 letters in "The Busy-Body" series. The essays were printed in 1729.

References

  1. Maestro, Marcello (1975). "Benjamin Franklin and the Penal Laws". Journal of the History of Ideas. 36 (3): 551–562. JSTOR   2708664.
  2. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Paul Leiter, ed. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 2006. p. 807
  3. Levine, Robert S. (1985). "Early American Literature: A Comparatist Approach by A. Owen Aldridge". Modern Philology. 82 (4): 429–431. doi:10.1086/391415. JSTOR   437038.
  4. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Paul Leiter, ed. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 2006. p. 815
  5. Bodleian Library archive of The Gentleman's Magazine
  6. Maestro, Marcello (1975). "Benjamin Franklin and the Penal Laws". Journal of the History of Ideas. 36 (3): 551–562. JSTOR   2708664.