In the course of the following year, an answer to the Blast appeared, under the title of “An Harborow for Faithful Subjects.”[314] Though anonymous, like the book to which it was a reply, it was soon declared to be the production of John Aylmer, one of the English refugees on the continent, who had been archdeacon of Stowe, and tutor to Lady Jane Grey. It {221} was not undertaken until the accession of Elizabeth, and was written, as Aylmer’s biographer informs us, “upon a consultation holden among the exiles, the better to obtain the favour of the new queen, and to take off any jealousy she might conceive of them, and of the religion which they professed.”[315] Aylmer himself says, that, if the author of the Blast “had not swerved from the particular question to the general,” but had confined himself to the queen who filled the throne when he wrote, “he could have said nothing too much, nor in such wise as to have offended any indifferent man;” and he allows with Knox that Mary’s government was “unnatural, unreasonable, unjust, and unlawful.”[316] From these and some other considerations, Knox was induced to express a suspicion, that his opponent had accommodated his doctrine to the times, and courted the favour of the reigning princess, by flattering her vanity and love of power.[317] It is certain, that, if Knox is entitled to the praise of boldness and disinterestedness, Aylmer carried away the palm for prudence; the latter was advanced to the bishopric of London, the former could not, without great difficulty, obtain leave to set his foot again upon English ground. Knox’s Trumpet would never have sounded its alarm, had it not been for the tyranny of {222} Mary, and there is reason to think that Aylmer would never have opened his “Harborow for faithful subjects,” but for the auspicious succession of Elizabeth. This, however, is independent of the merits of the question, which I do not feel inclined to examine minutely. The change which has taken place in the mode of administering government in modern times, renders it of less practical importance than it was formerly, when so much depended upon the personal talents and activity of the reigning prince. It may be added, that the evils incident to a female reign will be less felt under such a constitution as that of Britain, than under a pure and absolute monarchy. This last consideration is urged by Aylmer; and here his reasoning is most satisfactory.[318] The Blast bears the marks of hasty composition.[319] The Harborow has evidently been written with great care; it contains a good collection of historical facts bearing on the question; and, though more distinguished for rhetorical exaggeration than logical precision, the reasoning is ingeniously conducted, and occasionally enlivened by strokes of humour.[320] It is, upon the whole, a curious as well as rare work.