In a position such as Witherings held, and in a period when the public mind was greatly disturbed, it must have been a hard task for any man to keep free from entanglements and quarrels with the public. We have several notices of differences, more or less serious, in which Witherings was concerned. In May 1633, he is reported to have "misbehaved himself toward my Lord Marshal and his son Lord Maltravers," but in what respect is not stated. Again, in May 1636, Captain Carterett writes (to Sir John Coke, apparently), from on board his ship in the Downs, complaining of Witherings, as follows:--"Being in Dover Road, there came unto me one Mr. Thomas Witherings (who is also called Postmaster-General) for to have Captain Dunning's vessel to carry him over for Calais, having a packet (as he said) from your honour to my Lord Ambassador at Paris. I told him he should have the _Roebuck_, or I would go over with him myself. I desired him to show me the packet, but he told me he would neither show me order nor packet; he began to use me in very rough and coarse language, notwithstanding that I did use him with all the civility I could. I have heard that he had never a packet, but only went over to Calais about his own businesses. He gave out that he doth belong to your honour." There are always two sides to a story; and when Witherings' version had been heard, the tables were turned upon the captain. This appears by a letter, written by Secretary Coke to (probably) the Governor of Dover about the same period. "Finding our foreign letters," says Coke, "come with less expedition than they were used to do, and requiring account thereof from the Postmaster of Foreign Parts, he excused himself by a certificate that Captain Carteret, who is trusted with that business, refuses to put to sea with merchants' letters only. He formerly charged Mr. Witherings with uncivil usage, which I discovered to have no ground. His Majesty requires your lordship to rectify this disorder; and to charge Captain Carteret, to whom you give this trust, to be careful to convey the merchants' packets as his own. And if he be not conformable, that you appoint some other more proper for that duty; which Captain Drury before him performed with good content, and may haply be still ready to undertake." But two years later Witherings had a difference with a man of much higher standing, namely, the Earl of Northumberland, then Lord General of the Forces at Sea, arising out of some failure in the conveyance of a packet. The precise facts are not clear; but the immediate action taken by the earl is described in a letter from Witherings (to Secretary Coke, no doubt) dated 29th September 1638:--"It was my unhappy fortune," says Witherings, "to meet with Mr. Smyth, secretary to the Earl of Northumberland, who told me that his lordship had sent a warrant directed to a messenger for me. I went to his lordship's house--was there by six of the clock in the morning, where, after two hours' stay, I spoke with his honour; and the weather being extreme cold, I got an ague, and am now forced to keep my bed. The stage at Farnham, he told me, was a stage in pay; and I promised (if it were so) I would move your honour to compel him (the postmaster) to carry his lordship's packets. He also told me I had abused his lordship in not sending forward the packets which were brought to my house; to which I answered: that belonged not to me, but to the ordinary posts of the road" (probably the ordinary carriers are meant). "I also told his honour that I had sent for the packet books of all the posts betwixt London and Dover, to the intent if any abuse were committed it might be punished. Notwithstanding his honour was very well satisfied with my answers to him, his servant Smyth delivered the warrant to the messenger; and though I was in bed, yet he came up to my chamber, and, in a very violent way, asked me if I would obey the warrant or not; to whom I answered, that in regard of my sickness I could not at this time do it. Your honour may be pleased to satisfy his lordship in this business." In perusing this letter, we are struck with two things--the peremptoriness of the proceedings taken against a man in Witherings' position, and with his treatment at the earl's house. The latter is reminiscent of Dr. Johnson in the ante-room of the Earl of Chesterfield.