By Augustine Nigro
Not gain’d by Blood, nor took by conq’ring bands
Healthy and Prosprous PHILADELPHIA stands,
Design’d for Empire, Fittest for Command,
Built in the Center of a fruitful Land
Thou great Asylum, safe From lawless Foes;
Where Liberty infull Perfection glows:
As long as Winds may blow or Oceans rowl,
Safe may’st thou Stand, and Trace from Pole to Pole.
And there O ALLEN may’s thou treasure find,
Ev’n Great and Boundless like thy Gen’rous mind. 
“You may depend upon it that [Pennsylvania] is one of the best poor Man’s Countrys in the World, and agrees very well with English Constitutions.” 
William Allen, in a letter to John Griffths.
When the nineteenth century historian John Watson began researching the early history of Philadelphia, an elderly Philadelphian named Timothy Matlock told him that the earliest carriage he could remember was William Allen’s, an imported English coach pulled by majestic black horses.  It is not surprising that Allen’s coach made an impact on this passer-by, Allen’s team of horses and carriage “had long attracted attention, carry[ing] its owner in [a] state unequaled down Germantown Road.” 
Matlock’s reminiscence brings to light the enormous wealth accumulated by William Allen, symbolized by his coach and land possessions. Coaches were a sight worthy of remembrance in early eighteenth century Philadelphia, in a population of well more than twenty thousand residents by 1772, the city had only eighty-four carriage owners. Allen’s coach, however, stood above all others, valued at £200, twice as much as the average carriage, and driven by an imported English horseman.  In addition to its own display of wealth, Allen’s coach continually traveled between his estate outside of Germantown, a place where “families able to leave the crowded brick town” could settle, to the hub of commercial Philadelphia where “the richest and genteelest merchants dwelt,” Water Street.  In a society where land and transport were the most important status symbols of the day, Allen owned properties in the best neighborhoods in and out of the city and communed between the two in one of the finest carriages in the colony.
The colony of Pennsylvania was very good indeed to the Allen family. A first generation Pennsylvanian, William Allen became the richest man in the city of Philadelphia as well as the colony of Pennsylvania.  History, however, has not been as kind to him. Known to contemporary Philadelphians as “the great giant,” Allen’s substantial shadow on the historical landscape has long diminished and been overshadowed by other colonial luminaries. 
This is due more to political concerns than practical. An avowed loyalist, Allen left the colonies in 1776 and fled to England when hostilities broke out.  For many years, Scholars concentrated their research on the patriot forefathers of this country, loyalists were largely ignored in the historical record. Thus, the Allen name, which “for more than a century” had been “the synonym in that city for high ability, political power, great wealth, and the first social position, is there no longer known.” 
This negligence has severely hurt the historical record. Allen’s significance is more than the sum of his considerable finances. The values, beliefs, and actions of Allen as well as other loyalists were as important to the formation of this nation as those of the most famous patriots. Allen’s financial successes are directly related to the economic success of the city. His wealth and fortune symbolize and are an integral part of the wealth of the colony. Carl Bridenbaugh states that “foremost among the earlier generation of Philadelphia aristocrats was William Allen, . . . whose active life spanned the entire pre-Revolutionary period and whose interests and activities epitomized all that was best and most valuable in the emergent New World Aristocracy.” 
As a New World Aristocrat, Allen sought to gain wealth from the bountiful resources of this “virgin land.” Along with other colonial elites, Allen moved quickly into commercial trade, profiting from the exchange of resources between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Like many other aristocrats, however, Allen was not fool-hardy in his investments. When it became apparent that he could not control the external forces affecting his commercial enterprises, Allen sought to find a more stable and profitable business venture. 
Allen found a safer business arena when he turned his gaze away from the Old World and looked West to the heart of the New World. By abandoning mercantile trade and entering land speculation, Allen consolidated his business ventures from a global arena to a much more controllable, regional focus. Using his political office, Proprietary ties, and financial resources to ensure stability, Allen’s real wealth came from his real estate transactions in the hinterland, not European trade. 
Allen’s abandonment of trade for land speculation predates a fundamental turning point in Philadelphia’s history. In the early nineteenth century, many Philadelphia merchants followed Allen’s course, abandoning global trade for the growth of a trade network in its own hinterland. Diane Lindestrom points out that as Philadelphia’s foreign trade deteriorated in the nineteenth-century, due primarily to the rise of New York as America’s premier port city, Philadelphia grew because of its growth in its own hinterland trade. 
Allen had earlier realized that mercantile trade was a risky proposition and was not worthy of his investments. Switching jobs at mid-career may in itself seem risky, but Allen made sure that any unnecessary risks were eliminated from his speculative ventures, using his political, financial, familial, and social ties to ensure profits.
Allen’s contacts in Philadelphia were only of the highest sort. Born in 1704, Allen was the son of a successful Philadelphia merchant, William Allen. The elder Allen was a Scotch-Irish immigrant from Dungannon, Ireland. The Senior Allen was regarded as a “considerable promoter of the trade of the province, and a man of good character and estate.”  One can assume that the senior Allen was successful as merchant, seeing that he was able to afford educating his son in the best possible manner, sending the young lad to England to the Middle Temple to study law and later to Clare Hall, Cambridge. During his schooling in England, Allen learned of the death of his father and abruptly ended his schooling in 1729 to return to Philadelphia to take over the family estate. 
The estate that Allen took over was quite large, due to the apparent success of the senior Allen’s commercial endeavors. After returning from Europe, the younger Allen quickly followed in his father’s mercantile footsteps. Philadelphia’s commercial fortunes were optimistic as Pennsylvania begin to emerge from the depression caused by Queen Anne’s war. Allen wanted to be a part of this bountiful mercantile trade.
In order to participate in this trade, one needed ships. Immediately after returning from Europe in 1726, Allen, along with partners Joseph Turner and Clement Plumstead, bought shares in the thirty-ton sloop Drake.  In 1727, Turner and Allen had registered two larger ships, the forty-ton sloop Mary and the 150-ton Watts Galley, jointly owned by Allen, Turner and Roberts Watts of Barbados.  As Allen’s commercial fortunes grew, so did his mercantile fleet. By 1754, Allen had registered at least partial ownership in an additional sixteen vessels. 
Allen’s commercial enterprises proved quite successful, actively trading with colonies in the West Indies, specifically Cartagena, sometimes extra-legally. To his agent Don Bernard Ruize de Norriega, Allen sent “wine, cheeses apples, hams, bacon, dryed beefs and tongues.”  Allen also traded a coach, an old model “of a former Governor” to a Senor Ruiz. Allen also served as a middleman in the construction of a 110-ton vessel which was sold to a West Indian agent for 2500 dollars.  In return for this trade, Allen imported sugar, bar gold, and medicinal plants into Philadelphia. In fact, “through out the 1750’s, Allen was one of the largest and most influential traders engaged” in trade with the West Indies. 
In addition to his trading activities, Allen also funded many privateering expeditions. One of Allen’s privateers, the George, met with great success during the War of Jenkin’s Ear. The George captured three sloops blown out to sea by a hurricane and brought them to Providence, Rhode Island as prizes.  After France entered the war, Allen and Turn sent out a 130-ton ship, most probably the Wilmington, which captured a Spanish prize, containing 150 tons of cocoa, one ton of chocolate, near 8,000 pieces of eight, the crew and ten guns.  Over the course of his career, Allen bought three ships condemned by vice admiralty courts: the Sloop Rebecca, a 20-ton vessel taken from Spaniards in 1740; the Ship Eagle, a 100-ton vessel taken from the French around 1748; and the Snow Swallow a 100-ton “Prize Vessel.” 
Despite his successes, Allen was not satisfied with the profits gained from privateering or the West Indies trade. In 1753, Allen decided to help finance an expedition to search for a Northwest Passage to Asia. Allen’s goal was largely economic. He wrote to Thomas Penn that “in case our search for the passage should be fruitles we might strike out a lucrative trade on the Coast of Labrador.”  In addition, when the crew were not exploring or hunting, they should attempt “to establish a trade with the Eskimous & Indians.”  The expedition, however, proved unsuccessful.
Although Allen was a successful merchant, he realized his profits were limited. One problem was the extremely high insurance rates, especially in wartime. As tensions between the French and British increased in the year leading up to the French and Indian War, Allen told his West Indian customers not “to send any more Bar Gold, for as we are obliged to ship it to London, the Insurance will run to high.”  In addition, when his ships did capture a prize, its cargo was often undervalued by the admiralty courts and shared among a number of investors.  In Allen’s eyes, it was becoming increasingly hard to make a profit from commercial pursuits. In the 1750’s, the colonies entered another depression, trade throughout the empire declined. In response, Allen “liquidated his mercantile holdings” in 1753, “to give his time and energies to his land investments,” citing as reasons for his decision declining trade and falling prices.  Allen refused to risk his hard-won earnings in commercial trade during such an unstable period.
Allen’s abandonment of a trade is not surprising. Commercial success was not an end in itself, but a means to an end, gentlemanly retirement. As Thomas Doerflinger concludes, “in a society where the title of gentleman still carried great weight, trade was not so much a way of life as a way to get rich; if one could do this in a decade or so there was no good reason to slave away for another quarter of a century.” 
In doing so, Allen fulfilled both of the distinguishing features that Doerflinger argues characterized “ëPhiladelphia’s true aristocrats'; he was born rich, and his money was invested in relatively safe investments, rather than in trade.”  Allen’s inherited wealth, however, did not compare to the wealth that he had accumulated in his own right. As he converted his capital into real estate, it has been estimated that “no one in America commanded more mobile capital than did he.” 
Allen turned his full attention to his land investments. For many years, Allen had invested in the real estate market in Philadelphia and now took a more active role in this economic arena. Allen had many other real estate investments in the city, from the docks along the Delaware, to his townhouse and stores on Water Street, to his country estate Mount Airy on the road to Germantown. In fact, Allen was one of the largest purchasers of Philadelphia real estate in the eighteenth century.  His most famous Philadelphia purchase occurred on October 15, 1730, when he purchased land that would be the site of the State House of Philadelphia, (Independence Hall). After its purchase, Allen conveyed the property to the appointed authorities and was duly reimbursed by the colony.  In time, however, Allen lost interest in Philadelphia’s real estate just as he had for its mercantile trade.
Allen foresaw that the future of the colony lay westward, in the vast tracts of wilderness east of the Appalachians. On his many journeys through the Pennsylvania countryside, Allen may have shared some of the observations that Alexander Mackraby felt when traveling through the hinterland: As they advance inland, the climate becomes more temperate and settled, the soil rich and fertile, producing spontaneously many useful herbs, plants, and fruits, in many spots fine extensive tracts of open champain [sic] country, not loaded with useless woods as every part of the coast is — extremely troublesome and expensive to clear. 
As Allen curtailed his mercantile pursuits, he looked to the hinterlands for an enterprise that could provide him with a sufficient return. Norman Cohen writes that “here, as in no other enterprise, did Allen depend upon his connections, and the enormity of his holdings in part accounts for his political stands.” 
Allen’s knowledge of the Pennsylvania countryside was due in part to his role in the colonial government. Allen’s wealth and education made him an excellent candidate for civil service. For almost his entire adult life, he served in some political capacity. Allen was a member of the Pennsylvania assembly from 1730 to 1739. In 1735, Allen was elected mayor of the city. In 1739, Allen succeeded his father-in-law, Andrew Hamilton as recorder of Philadelphia, a post which he held for nine years, resigning in 1750. From 1750 to 1774, Allen served as chief justice. 
Allen used his political offices to further his financial well-being. Allen’s role as chief justice for the colony, afforded him plenty of time to scout the hinterlands for lands free of forests, with plentiful minerals, near adequate waterways, and distant from the border disputes between Maryland and Pennsylvania. In addition, Allen’s “close connection with the Penn family gave him priority in any Indian [land] purchases.” 
Allen acquired his land holdings in many different ways. After his return from England in 1725, young Allen purchased ten-thousand acres of land from William Penn, the son of the founder of Pennsylvania, for £741.15.  These lands, located above the forks of the Delaware at Easton, had not as yet been purchased from the Indians.  James Logan, the proprietary secretary, objected to the sale. He believed that once the Indians found out that Allen had claimed the area, they would raise the purchase price. Penn had wasted the colony’s money in order to reward Allen with prime real estate without any competition from other colonists, since the colony did not even own the land yet. Allen profited quickly from the sale, surveying the land, then dividing and selling it in small lots. 
A somewhat different transaction took place when William Penn gave five thousand acres of land to his daughter Laetitia who in turn sold the land to Allen for five hundred pounds. Allen was receiving quite a bargain in these transactions; within five years, Allen had resold Laetitia’s tract of land to the minister George Whitefield for £2200. 
In addition to direct purchases from the Penn family, Allen also received many other purchases using Joseph Turner, Allen’s business partner, as a front man in the exchange. In this way, it would not seem to the public that Allen was unfairly profiting from his close relationship to the Penn family. In 1732, Thomas Penn sold a five thousand acre grant of land to Joseph Turner who in turn sold it to Allen. Of that total, 1,385 acres of land was located above the forks of the Delaware. In 1769, Penn sold five thousand acres of land to Turner for £350, who in turn sold the land to Allen for five hundred pounds.
In addition to these purely speculative ventures, Allen also sought to profit from the resources found in his newly bought lands.  Although requiring heavy capital investments, extractive industries, when well-managed offered entrepreneurs a very reliable and stable source of income, much more so than mercantile trading. In 1727, Allen along with a number of other investors formed a stock company for the purpose of manufacturing iron, purchasing lands west of Philadelphia, near present-day Durham furnace. These extractive ventures became quite large in scale. One of Allen and Turner’s iron works was capitalized at £21,873.  Throughout his life, Allen continued to hold substantial tracts of iron land, including his share of the Durham tract, and substantial claims in New Jersey totaling well more than thirty thousand acres. 
In addition to iron mines, Allen also invested in copper mines. Allen controlled a one-third interest in a copper mine in Pennsylvania and a smaller share in a mine in Somerset County, New Jersey.  All told, Allen owned interests in “a rum distillery, a copper mine, several iron furnaces,” and even “headed a list of leading citizens who sought to encourage home industries by the erection of a ëLinen Manufactory.'”  This diversification in Allen’s financial dealings is reflective of an increasingly diverse Pennsylvania economy.
The variety and diversity of Allen’s investments insured that any economic recessions or depressions would not bankrupt him. In addition, the domestic nature of the enterprises ensured that he would have more control over his own economic fortunes. Allen escaped from the international mercantile markets because of the fact that he could not control them. Domestically, however, Allen could directly influence the economy, ensuring his own economic well being. Allen’s real estate interests were a major concern of his and in a large measure influenced his role in provincial politics.
As one of the leading supporters of the Penn family during the eighteenth century, Allen recognized that his interests were one and the same with the proprietors. Like the Penn’s, he was concerned about protecting the territorial borders of the colony from any opposing group, whether Indians, European aggressors, fellow Pennsylvanians, or bordering colonies. Allen laments that although lands were available for sale in “the Jerseys; . . . that Province is in so distracted a Condition . . . that nobody will venture to lay down any Sum for purchases there.”  In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, Allen was in a position to ensure the stability of the colony.
To strengthen his political ties, Allen used his position to marry Margaret Hamilton, the daughter of Andrew Hamilton, the speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly and one of the most powerful political figures in eighteenth century Philadelphia. In addition, Allen’s eldest daughter Ann was married to John Penn, grandson of the founder of the colony, on May 31, 1766.  Allen’s personal relations to the Penn family ensured that he would have their ear on many provincial matters. Such ties helped Allen become a key participant in many of the political debates regarding land ownership that occurred throughout the eighteenth century. One major event was the Pennsylvania-Maryland border dispute of the 1750s. Allen was one of the seven commissioners representing Pennsylvania at the joint commission which met to resolve this dispute at New Castle, Delaware in 1750. 
Another significant event that showed the intertwining interests between the Penn family and Allen was the infamous walking purchase of 1737. In 1762, the anti-proprietors appointed William Johnson to head an investigation of the controversial purchase. During the trial, William Allen was called forth to give evidence on the earlier purchase. During testimony, Allen continually defended the purchase, stating that the Indians had agreed to the treaty’s legality and had been satisfied with the settlement. In addition, the Indians were in reality natives of New Jersey who had no territorial rights to lands in Pennsylvania anyway. 
It is not difficult to see the economic implications that this court case had on Allen. In the disputed territory of the purchase lay the bulk of Allen’s real estate acquisitions, “million’s of acres in extent–cleansed of its Indian inhabitants.”  As Chief Justice, Allen used the weight of his office to influence the commission’s findings. In doing so, Allen supported Penn’s claim to the lands above the forks of the Delaware as well as his own. In regards to land acquisitions, Allen and Penn’s interests were the same.
As Norman Cohen states: “It was only in time of crisis, of war or economic dislocation,” that political fragmentation developed.  Philadelphia merchants first entered provincial politics in the early 1740s, when their economic interests were threatened by French and Spanish privateers lurking at the mouth of the Delaware River.  In the autumn of 1741, Allen led a campaign to block the election of Quakers to the Philadelphia Common Council.  The election day riot, however, ruined Allen’s chances of breaking the Quaker hold on provincial politics and ruined his own political reputation for the next ten years. 
Bridenbaugh writes that “during King George’s War, William Allen was strongly opposed to the passive Quaker policies and prominent among those who demanded a vigorous defense of the colony.”  In spite of threatened losses in his speculative ventures, Allen profited greatly from King George’s War, with the firm of Allen and Turner trading under flags of truce throughout the conflict.
By 1754, Indian violence on the Western Pennsylvanian frontier convinced the Philadelphia merchants that they needed to defend their colony from Native American encroachments.  Allen wrote to William Beckford of London lamenting that:
We have of late been harrassed by the Incursion of bloody Savages, who have, for Some time past, ravaged the back parts of this Province, & laid it waste with Fire & sword; by which means Thousands of Familys have been driven from their Habitations, These Miserys are chiefly owing the defenceless State of the Province; –our Assembly being filled with Quakers . . . 
In 1754, Allen lamented to Evan Patterson that the French, “finding that our Quakers will not defend the Country seem to be about to take possession of this Province.”  The French threat jeopardized Allen’s speculative ventures. He complained that the French encroachment and fort building dramatically alter the hinterland; land “that is not already in their possession is, at present in so precarious a Situation, that I do not care to venture to buy any more . . .” 
In the French and Indian War, Allen took up a vigorous defense of the colony, and also his own land holdings. After the defeat of Braddock’s forces, Allen sent a letter to Barclay & Sons asking to purchase “a Thousand Musquets” from “the Tower, . . . a piece with Bayounets & Cartouch Boxes, . . . together with a Tun of Musquet Balls.”  In 1756, the first tangible structure was built to protect the residents of the Lehigh Valley from Indian attack. It is not surprising that it was named Fort Allen, in honor of the Chief Justice.  Allen aided the war effort in the best way he could, monetary support. In a letter to Allen after the fall of Fort Duquesne, Col. Henry Bouquet wrote:
I take with great pleasure this first opportunity of informing you of the Reduction of this important place, pursuaded that the success of his Majesty’s Arms on this side will give you a great satisfaction, and reward you for all the pains you have taken for the difficult supply of this army. 
Bouquet warned Allen that his initial successes might prove fleeting if he did not get any more supplies. Bouquet knew exactly how to play Allen, telling the Chief Justice “It is now in your power to enjoy in peace and quietude your Lands and possessions, if you will lay out in time some money, which may save you ten times more.”  Allen’s vigor in defending Penn’s colony and his own land interests drew him into direct conflict with the anti-Proprietary faction of Pennsylvanians, led by Benjamin Franklin.  The two men became political enemies in and around the events of 1756.
It was during this time that a brutal Indian war gripped much of the Pennsylvania hinterland. At an Indian conference at the forks of the Delaware, Israel Pemberton and other Quaker supporters convinced the Lenni Lenape that the true cause of war was the fraudulent land practices of the proprietor of the colony. The Quakers were the true supporters of the Indians. 
Pemberton’s statement represented a direct attack not only on the Penn family, but Allen as well. Here at the site that marked the beginning of Allen’s substantial land claims, Pemberton blamed all of the violence and war that the colony had seen on land purchases such as Allen’s. Franklin was an active supporter of Pemberton, seeing that these abuses might be used to revoke the Penn charter. When Pemberton sought to reconcile with the proprietors, “one of the most important obstacles was William Allen, who so despised Pemberton that he refused to consider any attempts to mediate differences between the two factions, even if it hurt Franklin.”  (Years earlier, Allen had used his influence with the Penn family to assist Ben Franklin in his attempt to become Pennsylvania’s Postmaster General.)
In later years, Allen would continue to attack the anti-proprietors, seeing them as a threat to his own welfare. In 1765, William Franklin, Benjamin’s son, wrote that after Franklin had left for England, “Mr. Allen, one of the principal Prop’y. Tools in Pennsylvania, has employed that miscreant Parson Smith & two or three other prostitute writers, to asperse his character in which have been very industrious.” 
The success of the anti-proprietors, including Franklin, and the increased radicalism of colonial politics spelled doom for the political influence of Allen. Allen’s hope to ensure a state of stability over Pennsylvania’s politics failed. It soon became apparent that the problems that Allen had sought to escape by leaving commercial trade would come home to roost in the colonies themselves. In the years after the Seven Years War, colonists begin to criticize their relationship with England, politically, socially, and economically. Allen participated in many of these protests, criticizing any restraint England imposed on colonial trade.
Remaining conservative, however, Allen realized that his interests would not be served by a break from England. Independence of the colonies would mean anarchy and chaos. To a man like Allen, who had continually sought to maintain order and control over his economic affairs, independence was not the answer. As other colonists drifted away from Allen’s view and more toward independence, Allen sought refuge in his home at Mt. Airy. Allen and three of his loyalist sons spent the revolution “as unhappy onlookers to a revolution which they hoped would ignore them.”  In September 1780, Allen died at his home in Philadelphia. Even in death, he made the most of his opulent lifestyle. On the day of his death, the Allen family paid David Evans, the “leading cabinet maker of Philadelphia,” £13 for a “coffin of Mahogany, with plate, horse hire, and attendance on the corpse from Mt. Airy.” 
The life of William Allen is representative of the tie between personal interest and politics that marked the careers and fortunes of many colonial elites. Allen’s economic, political, and social power is representative of Philadelphia’s and Pennsylvania’s colonial growth, as well as major factors within that growth. By looking at Allen’s personal history as a microcosm, one can get a more nuanced, illustrative record of Pennsylvania’s early colonial history.
 David S. Shields, “The Wits and Poets of Pennsylvania: New Light on the rise of Belles Lettres in Provincial Pennsylvania, 1720-1740,” PMHB 109 (1985), 120.
 William Allen to John Griffiths, Jr., Allen’s Letter Book, 120. Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
 Robert Oaks, “Big Wheels in Philadelphia: Du Simitiere’s List of Carriage Owners.” PMHB. 95 (1971), 354.
 quoted in Carl and Jessica Bridenbaugh, Rebels and Gentleman: Philadelphia in the Age of Franklin (New York, 1942), 186-87.
 Oaks, 351.
 Margaret B. Tinkcom, “Clivedon: The Building of A Philadelphia Country Seat, 1763-1767.” PMHB. 88 (1964), 3 and John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia. (Philadelphia, 1830), 203.
 See Edward F. Delancey, “Chief Justice William Allen.” PMHB 1 (1877), 202 and Bridenbaugh, 186.
 Joseph Jackson, Encyclopedia of Philadelphia volume 1 (Harrisburg, 1931), 53.
 In that same year, Allen’s sons William and Andrew resigned their posts in the Continental Army and in the Continental Congress, respectively. Andrew reputedly resigned from the Congress “not because he was totally unfit for it, but because the Continental Congress presumed to declare the American States free and independent, without first asking the consent and obtaining the approbation of himself and wise family.” See Delancy, 207, 209.
 Ibid., 211.
 Bridenbaugh, 184.
 Thomas M. Doerflinger, A Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise: Merchants and Economic Development in Revolutionary Philadelphia (Chapel Hill, 1986), 42-43.
 Norman Sonny Cohen, “William Allen: Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, 1704-1780″ (Ph. D. diss. , University of California, Berkeley, 1964), 69.
 Diane Lindestrom, Economic Development in the Philadelphia Region, 1810-1850 (New York, 1978), 23.
 Robert Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 1681-1770. (Philadelphia, 1797-98) II, 168, quoted in Ruth Moser Kistler, “William Allen, Provincial Man of Affairs.” Pennsylvania History 1 (1934), 165.
 Kistler, 166.
 “Ship Registers for the Port of Philadelphia, 1726-1775,” PMHB 23 (1899), 257.
 “Ships Registers,” 257, 258, 260.
 “Ship Registers for the Port of Philadelphia, 1726-1775,” PMHB 23 (1899), 370, 380, 498, 511; 24 (1900), 112, 217, 353, 356, 365, 505, 509, 511; 25 (1901): 281, 402, 411, 415.
 Lewis Burd Walker, Extracts From Allen’s Letter Book, (By the author 1897), 11-17, 20, 28, 34; and Cohen, 52.
 Cohen, 52.
 Ibid., 54.
 On June 13, 1743, Allen and Turner registered the 130 ton ship Wilmington, captained by John Sibbald, to the Port of Philadelphia. See “Ship Registers for the Port of Philadelphia, 1726-1775,” PMHB 24 (1900), 217. William Allen to Thomas Penn, November 20, 1742. Penn Official Correspondence, III, 247; and William Allen to Thomas Penn, August, 1743, 263; William Allen to Thomas Penn, Philadelphia, October 3, 1743. Penn Official Correspondence, 275.
 “Ship Registers for the Port of Philadelphia, 1726-1775,” PMHB 23 (1899),112; 24 (1900), 509; and 25 (1901), 411.
 William Allen to Thomas Penn, November 17, 1752, in Edwin Swift Balch, “Arctic Expeditions sent from the American Colonies,” PMHB 31(1907), 421.
 William Allen to Thomas Penn, July 7, 1753. Penn Official Correspondance, volume 6, 79. Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
 William Allen to Don Bernardo Ruiz, June 15, 1755. Walker, 20.
 William Allen to Thomas Penn, August, 1743. Penn Official Correspondence, III., 263.
 William Allen to Thomas Simpson, London, November 5, 1753. Walker, 8 and Cohen, 50 and William Allen, Philadelphia to David Barclay & Sons, London. April 5, 1760. reprinted in E. P. Richardson, “West’s Voyage to Italy, 1760, and William Allen.” PMHB 102 (1978), 5.
 Doerflinger, 57.
 Ibid., 42-43.
 Bridenbaugh, 186.
 For a fuller discussion of Allen’s Philadelphia holdings see Cohen, 77-78.
 Delancey, 203.
 Alexander Mackraby to Sir Philip Francis, January 20, 1768. in “Philadelphia Society Before the Revolution; Extracts from Letters of Alexander Mackraby to Sir Philip Francis,” PMHB 11 (1887), 277.
 Cohen, 69.
 Ibid., 70.
 James Logan to the Proprietors, September 17, 1729, Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd Series, VII, (Harrisburg, 1881), 131.
 According to Joseph Levering, the term “forks of the Delaware” refers to “the locality just within the confluence of the Delaware River and the Lehigh or ëWest Fork of the Delaware,’ and a few miles up these streams . . . to the Kittatiny or Blue Mountains.” Joseph Mortimer Levering, A History of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1741-1892. (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1903), 45-46.
 Cohen, 70.
 Whitefield had purchased the land for his associate William Seward. When Seward when to London to raise the necessary money, he was “bludgeoned, blinded, and robbed,” latter dying of his injuries. Whitefield was left with the tract “Nazareth which he later gave to the Moravians. See Cohen, 72.
 “Notes and Queries,” PMHB 22 (1899), 112.
 Doerflinger, 155.
 Cohen, 62.
 Cohen, 67.
 Bridenbaugh, 186-187.
 William Allen to Evan Patterson, London, November 5, 1753. Walker, 7.
 Howard M. Jenkin’s, “The Family of William Penn,” PMHB 22 (1898-1899), 82.
 John W. Jordan, “Penn versus Baltimore,” PMHB 38 (1914): 385.
 Cohen, 76.
 Ibid., 75.
 Norman S. Cohen, “The Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742,” PMHB 92 (1968), 307.
 James H. Hutson, Pennsylvania Politics: 1746-1770 (Princeton, 1972), 150-151.
 Herman Wellenreuther, “The Quest for Harmony in a Turbulent World: The Principles of ëLove and Unity’ in colonial Pennsylvania’s politics,” PMHB 107 (1983), 547.
 Wellenreuther, 552.
 Bridenbaugh, 185.
 Hutson, 151.
 William Allen to William Beckford, Esq. November 27, 1755. Walker, 31-32.
 William Allen to Evan Patterson, London, December 23, 1754. Walker, 17.
 William Allen to D. Barclay & Sons, July 21, 1755. Walker, 22-23.
 Levering, 333.
 “Correspondence of Col. Henry Bouquet.” PMHB 32 (1908), 448.
 Ibid., 450.
 It is ironic that the two men became political enemies, for it was “by solicitations from” Allen and friends that Franklin “has obtained the Office of being joint Post Master . . . of all North America.” In a letter to Penn, Richard Peters wrote that “Mr. Allen told me that I might depend upon it, [Franklin] would act a fair and good part in the Assembly.”See William Allen to David Barclay & Sons, London, November 5, 1753, Allen’s Letter Book, 10 and Benjamin H. Newcomb, Franklin and Galloway: A Political Partnership (New Haven, 1972), 22 and William S. Hanna, Benjamin Franklin and Pennsylvania Politics (Palo Alto, California, 1964), 70.
 Hanna, 107-108.
 William Franklin to William Strahan. February 18, 1765. reprinted in “Letters From William Franklin to William Strahan.” PMHB 35 (1911), 441.
 Cohen, 343.
 “Excerpts from the Day Books of David Evans, Cabinet-Maker, Philadelphia: 1774-1811.” PMHB 27 (1903), 49-50.