accession of George III, is unobjectionable; but in 1768 he is generally credited with aiding the son of the Marquis of Granby to defend Lord Baltimore, who was awaiting his trial in Newgate on a charge of rape, by the publication of an anonymous pamphlet entitled ‘Modern Chastity; or the Agreeable Rape, a poem by a young gentleman of sixteen in vindication of the Right Hon. Lord B——e.’ The production chiefly consists of a coarse attack on the Methodist sect, to which the prosecutrix in the case against Lord Baltimore belonged. [See Calvert, George, Lord Baltimore, 1731–1771.] It is attributed to Allen on the fairly certain ground of a contemporary manuscript note in the copy at the British Museum, stating it to be ‘undoubtedly by the well-known Rev. Bennet Allen.’ Horace Walpole (Letters, vi. 44) is believed to refer to this work and to another on a kindred topic, of which Allen is also assumed to be the author, in a letter to the Countess of Ossory, dated 5 Jan. 1774. ‘The present Lord Granby [who had succeeded to the title in 1770],’ he writes, ‘is an author, and has written a poem on “Charity” [i.e. a probable misreading for ‘Chastity’], and in prose a “Modest Apology for Adultery.” . . . They say his lordship writes in concert with a very clever young man, whose name I have forgotten.’ A shilling pamphlet, entitled ‘A Modest Apology for the prevailing Practice of Adultery,’ was announced for publication in August 1773 in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine’ (p. 398), but nothing further is known of it, and it may possibly have been suppressed.
In subsequent years Allen contributed largely to the ‘Morning Post,’ and in an anonymous article, called ‘Characters of Principal Men of the [American] Rebellion,’ which appeared there on 29 June 1779, he vehemently attacked the character of a gentleman named Daniel Dulany, formerly secretary of Maryland. On 1 July the ‘Morning Post’ withdrew the charges against Dulany, but Mr. Lloyd Dulany, a brother of the subject of the alleged libel, challenged its unknown author in the pages of the newspaper. Allen does not appear to have declared himself the writer of the article immediately, but after a long interval a meeting was arranged. On 18 June 1782 the duel was fought, and Dulany was killed. Allen and his second, Robert Morris, surrendered themselves on 5 July of the same year, to answer a charge of manslaughter at the Old Bailey sessions. After a trial, which attracted general public attention, Allen, in spite of the evidence as to his character adduced by Lords Bateman, Mountnorris, and many fashionable ladies, was convicted, and sentenced to a fine of one shilling and six months' imprisonment. Of Allen's later life no account is accessible.
[Notes and Queries (3rd series), iii. 251; Annual Register (1782), p. 213; European Magazine, ii. 79; Gent. Mag. lii. 353.]
ALLEN, EDMUND (1519?–1559), bishop-elect of Rochester, a native of the county of Norfolk, was elected a fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1536, took the degree of M.A. in 1537, and was steward of his college in 1539. Not long afterwards he obtained permission from the society to go and study beyond the seas for a limited time. When the leave of absence had almost expired, his friend Sir Henry Knyvett wrote to the master and fellows requesting a further indulgence of two or three years, both on account of the wars, which rendered his return unsafe, and of his being in a situation where he had an opportunity of making considerable advances in learning. Sir Henry seems to have been more than ordinarily solicitous about obtaining this favour, and he assured the college authorities that if they would oblige him therein, he should gladly lay hold of any opportunity to show his gratitude. To this appeal the president (Mr. Porie), in the absence of the master, with the consent of the rest, returned a favourable answer, granting leave of absence for two years longer, but exhorting him to advise Allen in his next letters ‘to use himselfe in all points pristelike in holinesse and devocion, whereof we here otherwise, but as all reports be not true, so I trust this is not.’ On the receipt of Sir Henry's letters Allen wrote a long answer to the president (dated from Landau, 22 March 1545–6), acknowledging the favour shown him, and endeavouring to purge himself from the slanderous reports by solemnly declaring in the presence of God that they were all utterly false. He entreats Porie to continue to him both his friendship and good offices with the society, and also to remit him his stipend, of which he stood in urgent need by reason of ‘the extreme dearth that hath beene here so great thes three yearys, as no man here lyvyng can remember any like.’ He adds that he was frequently obliged to change the place of his abode on many necessary considerations, more particularly to hear the divers gifts of God in good men, whereby, he thanked the Lord, he had found no little profit; and he concludes, in the same pious strain in which the rest of his letter is written, with his hearty prayers for the prosperity of the society. There can be no doubt that his denial of the reports that he was attached to the
