Witherings had not long put the posts into some kind of order, as
regards expedition and regularity, with the result no doubt of
increased business and growing profit to himself, when his possession
of the office of Postmaster for Foreign Parts excited the covetous
heart of Windebank--one of the two Principal Secretaries of State
and joint Comptroller with Coke of the inland posts, and a friend or
creature of Laud.
Pigeon-holes in public offices, as elsewhere, have long memories; and a
paper referring (as is supposed) to the year 1637 has been preserved,
containing "Observations of Secretary Windebank for recalling the
patent formerly granted to Mr. Witherings to be Postmaster for
Foreign Parts." The principal grounds suggested for getting rid of
Witherings are the following:--"The inconvenience of suffering such
an office to remain in the hands of a person who is no sworn officer.
Suspicion that his patent was surreptitiously obtained--no signed
bill was found. Persons who hold the office of Postmaster abroad are
of so great quality that they disdain to correspond with a man of his
mean condition. Some satisfaction may be given him, but he has very
much enriched himself upon the place. He is said to be worth £800 a
year in land. The office of Postmaster-General being now vested in
the Secretaries, the carrying of letters is a business of State. If
Witherings shall insist upon his patent, His Majesty may sequester
the place into the hands of the Secretaries." We cannot say whether
Witherings was aware of what was hatching in the mind of Windebank, but
we know that he was not then driven from his office.
Troubles now arose out of the exclusive privilege of carrying letters
as set forth and described in the king's proclamation of the 31st July
1635. It appears, by an Order of Council of the 15th December 1637,
that one "Jason Grover, carrier of Ipswich and Yarmouth, was taken in
custody by a messenger, upon complaint that he had transgressed the
proclamation and patent granted to Mr. Witherings." The Lords could not
then settle the matter, and Jason was discharged upon a bond of £200,
to appear at Hilary term next, to answer what was alleged against him.
In a petition to the Council in January 1638, Grover gives his version
of the affair as follows:--"Petitioner, about two months ago, riding on
one of his pack-horses with his pack, was arrested by the procurement
of Mr. Witherings, Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts. Petitioner
remained in the messenger's custody 16 days before he came to this
Board, when it was ordered that he should attend to be heard the first
week in Hilary term, and in the meantime petitioner was permitted to
follow his vocation. But on the 11th instant there came a messenger,
and summoned petitioner to attend on Wednesday then next, all which he
has punctually observed, yet Mr. Witherings threatens that he will not
leave petitioner worth a groat."
Witherings gives his view of the matter in petition to the Council
about the same time. "About three weeks since," says he, "the _posts_
of Norwich and Yarmouth petitioned to be released, which was granted,
with the proviso that they should attend after the holidays, and in
the meantime be comformable to the grant of the letter office by bond,
which bond Grover of Ipswich has already forfeited. On the hearing, Mr.
Hieron, counsel for the _posts_, cast an aspersion on the petitioner
that he should say they ought not to be heard by your Lordships,
which petitioner denies, and doubts not to clear himself of everything
else that shall be objected to him. As the _posts_ continue to carry
letters contrary to petitioner's grant, he prays the Lords to consider
the great charge he has been at in settling the conveyance of letters
throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, and other parts beyond the seas,
and not to suffer the _posts_ to continue carrying letters."
It should be noted that the word "posts," as used in this memorial of
Witherings, applies to the common carriers or packmen.
Grover was not left to fight the battle of the carriage of letters
alone. He was supported by the merchants of Norwich, and others
trading in Norwich stuffs, in a petition addressed to the Council as
follows:--"There has long been a constant trade betwixt London and
Norwich in sundry sorts of stuffs and stockings made in Norwich and
Norfolk, which trade has always been maintained by the merchants of
Norwich employing their stocks in buying the wares of the makers, and
sending them up weekly in carts by common carriers to London, whence
they are dispersed into all parts of this kingdom, and also exported to
foreign parts, in which intercourse of trade we always had our letters
safely and speedily carried by our common carrier, by a horseman, not
in manner of postage by change of horses, but as is usual by common
carriers, and for little or no charge to us. Of late Mr. Witherings
has intercepted our letters and molested our carriers, forbidding them
to carry any of our letters otherwise than to go along with their
carts, and no faster." Petitioners then explain why the new system of
conveying letters will prove detrimental to their trade, and pray that
"they may enjoy their ancient course of conveying letters by their
common carriers." A separate memorial to a similar effect was sent up
by Robert Sumpter, Mayor, and seventeen others of the town of Norwich.
After hearing Thomas Witherings and Jason Grover, and their counsel,
upon this dispute, an Order in Council was drafted, on the 19th
January, to the following effect:--
"It was ordered that Grover and all carriers shall henceforth conform
to the letters patent granted to Witherings of the letter office, and
the proclamation in that behalf. _But their Lordships declared that
it would be lawful for any carrier that should receive the letters
of merchants or others, to be carried from town to town within the
kingdom, to use what diligence he may, and to ride what pace he will,
so as he do it without shifting or change of horses._ It was objected
that Witherings took more for the carriage of letters within the
kingdom than was usual; the Lords referred the consideration of all
complaints of that nature to the Secretaries of State, praying them to
take courses for redress of such abuse." This draft, on being submitted
to the king, did not wholly satisfy him; and he struck out the clause
in italics, writing in the margin the words, "This clause to be left
out."
On the 21st January another Order in Council was drafted on this vexed
question: "It was ordered that the carriers of Norwich, as was ordered
on the 19th instant for the carrier of letters of Yarmouth and Ipswich,
should conform to the letters patent granted to Witherings of the
letter office, and to the proclamation on that behalf, and not presume
to do or attempt anything contrary to the same." Three days later,
namely, on the 24th January, yet another Order in Council was issued
from the Inner Star Chamber, making a concession to the carriers:
"It was now ordered that for the better accommodation of the said
merchants, it should be permitted to the common and known carriers
of letters belonging to Norwich, or any other town, to carry the
letters of merchants and others, travelling with the same letters the
ordinary journeys that common carriers travel, and coming to London,
Norwich, or any other town, not above eight hours before the carts,
waggons, or pack-horses, whereunto Witherings and others are to conform
themselves." This concession would appear to refer to the practice
of the masters of the heavy waggons performing the common carrying
business of the country, riding on a horse alongside the waggons, and
who, leaving the waggons in charge of their men when nearing their
destination, might make a dash forward to arrange the loading for the
return journey. The masters of a string of pack-horses would probably
adopt the same practice.
Jason, who had been fighting for the continuance of the old state
of things, seems not to have become aware at once of the limited
concession made to the carriers, and the result is described in
the following _de profundis_ addressed to the Earl of Dorset, Lord
Chamberlain to the Queen, and one of the Lords of the Council, from the
uncongenial precincts of the Fleet Prison:--
"Petitioner and the carriers of Norwich were lately questioned by Mr.
Witherings touching the carriage of letters; and the Lords ordered a
settled course, not only for the carriers of Norwich, but for all other
carriers, by Order of the 24th January last, to which Order petitioner
is willing to conform himself, but had no knowledge that the same was
drawn up till the 10th February instant. And although petitioner has
not broken the said Order since the drawing up thereof, yet he, with
his two men, were by Witherings' procurement for 17 days committed to
a messenger, and now to the Fleet, and cannot be discharged except
petitioner will enter into bond to perform such order as Witherings
has prescribed, which is contrary to the Order of the Board. Prays that
he may enjoy the benefit of the said Order, and not be punished before
he has broken the same, nor compelled by Witherings to enter into bond,
the Order being a sufficient tie."
Jason Grover must have found himself in very respectable company in the
Fleet Prison, for, at the very time of his confinement, two well-known
historical characters, John Lilburne and John Warton, were, under the
proceedings of the notorious Star Chamber, thrown into this place of
evil note. "Upon the 9th February 1638, the Star Chamber ordered that,
as the two delinquents had contemptuously refused to take the oaths
tendered to them, they should be remanded to the Fleet Prison, there
to remain close prisoners, and to be examined," etc. It is a curious
coincidence that the charge against these men was for the "unlawful
printing and publishing of libellous and seditious books, entitled
_News from Ipswich_," etc., and that Grover's incarceration was for the
carriage of letters from the same district of country.
In order to put matters beyond all doubt, as between Witherings on
the one hand and the common carriers and the public on the other, and
to lay down clearly the mode of working, with the claims of the whole
postal service committed to the hands of Witherings, a fresh royal
proclamation was issued on the 11th February 1638. Of the original
issue of this document it is understood that copies are extremely rare.
The main provisions of the proclamation are the following:--That as
the secrets of the realm might be disclosed to foreign nations were
promiscuous carriers of letters allowed to the Continent, none other
were to be suffered than those employed by Witherings; that Witherings'
carriers to the Continent should travel by the sole route of Dover,
Calais, Boulogne, Abbeville, and Amiens, and thence to Paris. Noticing
that "sundry abuses and miscarriages" are daily being committed in
respect of the inland posts to the prejudice of Witherings, the
proclamation sets forth that, where Witherings' posts are laid down,
"no post or carrier whatsoever within His Majesty's dominions" ...
"shall presume to take up, carry, receive and deliver any letter or
letters," etc., "except a particular messenger sent on purpose with
letters by any man for his own occasions, or letters by a friend, or by
common known carriers, who are hereby permitted to carry any letters
along with their carts, waggons, and pack-horses, travelling with the
same the ordinary known journeys that common carriers use to travel.
Provided always that they, nor any of their servants, at no time stay
at any place from whence they carry any letters above eight hours
after their carts, waggons, or pack-horses are departed, nor bring any
letters to London, or elsewhere, above eight hours before the said
carts, waggons, or pack-horses shall come there." The postage exigible
by Witherings for inland letters was to be as follows:--
Single Double Heavy
Miles. Letter. Letter. Letter.
Under 80 2d. 4d. 6d. per oz.
From 80 to 140 4d. 8d. 9d. "
Over 140 6d. 1s. 0d. 1s. 0d. "
To Ireland 9d. -- 2s. 6d. "
Provision is made for the punishment of any post-boy or other servant
charging any sum in excess of these rates.
The Council, in managing the affairs of the country generally, must
have had their hands very full, for the amount of business brought
to their consideration in connection with the posts alone, judging
by the records left, was by no means small. The postmasters were
constant complainers of their treatment by the State, and the public
equally constant complainers against the postmasters. In November
1637, Robert Challenor, His Majesty's post of Stone, County Stafford,
memorialises Secretaries Coke and Windebank as follows:--"Petitioner
for 40 years has been postmaster in the said place, which office he
has always faithfully executed in his own person, until visited with
a long sickness, as by an annexed certificate appears. Mr Witherings
endeavours to put another in petitioner's place, upon pretence that
petitioner had put in a deputy, being his son, who about a year and a
half since, in the time of petitioner's sickness, gave his assistance
for performance of His Majesty's service; and on the 17th March 1637
petitioner, during his illness, disposed of his estate by will, and
then assigned his arrears due to him for his post-wages to his son,
towards discharging petitioner's debts, and benefit of his wife and
children. Mr Witherings, in regard petitioner would not give him £100
for petitioner's place (over and above the carriage of the merchants'
letters twice every week), has for £40 given orders for the said place
to another, whose parents have been great recusants. Petitioner being
still able and willing, and his arrears £368 (that stage being the
longest between London and Chester, and yet is allowed only 20d. per
diem), prays order that he may be continued in his place, and may
receive the said £368." This petition was backed up by a certificate of
the Justices of the Peace of the county, setting forth the petitioner's
fitness for the office.
Another postmaster, Thomas Parks, on the stage from London to Barnet,
petitions Secretary Windebank to the following effect:--"Has executed
that office about six years, which has stood him in £180, without any
neglect, as Mr. Railton can inform you, and has received but two years'
pay at the rate of 20d. per diem. Notwithstanding his diligence,
Mr Witherings endeavours to bring in another, and has already taken
from petitioner the through posts place of Charing Cross, which cost
petitioner £63, 6s. Prays order to Witherings to deliver petitioner his
orders and confirm him in his place."
David Francis, late post of Northop, petitions thus:--"There is £90
in arrear to petitioner for execution of the said place, as appears
by the last account of Lord Stanhope to the Auditors. Has been three
months in town soliciting payment, and received fair promises from Mr.
Witherings; but now he absolutely says petitioner shall have none, so
that he is like to be imprisoned. Has spent near his whole estate in
coming to town to solicit for his father's arrears, who was post of
Chester 60 years. Prays order to receive part with the rest who are in
the privy seal, otherwise he is like to perish by the prosecution of
his greedy creditors."
Richard Scott, innkeeper of Stilton, Huntingdonshire, petitions
Coke and Windebank for the place of a postmaster who discharges his
office by deputy. "For some years past," says he, "the place of post
of Stilton, being in the high North road, has been executed by a
deputy, who keeps an alehouse there, the postmaster living twelve
miles distant, and his deputy no ways able to receive gentlemen and
travellers, much less noblemen, whereby the posts are forced to travel
at unseasonable times and are not fitted with able horses. Petitioner
being an innkeeper in the town, both able and willing to give noblemen
and gentlemen entertainment, prays that he may serve His Majesty in
that place."
Royston, a market-town in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, was an
important place in relation to the posts for two reasons: it was a
stage not far distant from London, on the great North road, and a place
of residence for the king when he retired to hunt in the neighbourhood.
Now, on these two accounts there must have been frequent demands made
upon the postmaster to provide horses, and, on occasions, considerable
numbers of horses. We are little familiar with the demands then made
for horses when the sovereign was pleased to go on progress. In
_Nichols' Progress of James I._, it is stated that the number of carts
employed when the sovereign went on progress was, about the year 1604,
reduced from 600 to 220! And even when the king moved about, not in
a formal progress, it is probable that large orders were given for
horses. In an account of the number of post horses taken up at Royston
by four o'clock in the morning of one day in February 1638, it is
recorded that, from nineteen parishes, 200 horses were so taken up,
each parish contributing from six to fourteen horses. That the duties
of the postmaster were more than usually onerous, is recognised in the
fact that he and the postmaster of Newmarket, where there was another
royal hunting seat, were paid (or were supposed to be paid) on the
highest scale allowed to postmasters, namely, 4s. 4d. a day, as will be
seen by the list of wages previously given.
But all this levying of horses was extremely burdensome and irritating
to the people, who, however, do not appear to have submitted quietly
to the infliction. The following petition of eighteen inhabitants
of Royston, to the Justices of Peace for the county of Hertford,
shows how matters stood, and the estimation in which they held their
postmaster; it refers to April 1638:--"Thomas Haggar, of their town,
innholder, bearing himself so irregularly by authority of his office
(as postmaster), abuses his protection, to the great grievance of
the town and country: breaking open some of their doors in the night
without constable; taking away their horses without their privity;
extorting, bribing, beating, commanding, threatening countrymen that
will not fee him, or do him service with their carts, or spend their
money in tippling in his house; hindering poor men from coming to the
market to sell their corn, by taking their horses post when there is no
cause; causing the horses to be double posted, keeping them longer than
the service requires; and misusing young colts and horses not fit for
that service, whereby they are oftentimes spoiled; as also taking more
horses than need requires. They state the consequences to their market,
and pray relief."
With this petition the following specific cases of abuse were set
forth, some of them sworn under affidavit. One John Rutter, a
husbandman of Harleton, Co. Cambridge, having his horse, along with
others, taken up to go post to Ware, and seeing one of the others
released, "said he feared there was underhand dealing; whereupon the
postmaster's wife, and afterwards the postmaster himself, violently
assaulted him, so that he was forced to lie at Royston all night for
his hurts to be dressed, and was compelled to go to Ware after his
horse, and had to pay charges for him, being paid only for one stage,
although his horse had gone two; and was much wronged thereby." The
statement adds that the postmaster, and also his wife and servants,
"usually take money to free horses from going post, and then take other
horses to do the service." A yeoman of Croydon, Co. Cambridge, named
Amps, complained of Haggar taking a horse to go post one stage from
Royston, but discovered that it had been ridden to Newmarket. When
the horse was returned, the postmaster refused payment; and because
Amps made complaint, he found that whenever he came to Royston the
postmaster was "ready to take his horse and put an unreasonable load
upon him." One of the chief constables of the Hundred of Odsey, Co.
Hertford, stated that, having to serve a warrant on Haggar for an
assault, he compelled him to send on the packet, which means that his
horse was taken to ride the post stage. The complainer adds, that
"by taking money to excuse post horses, the market of Royston is
much wronged." Another case of assault by Haggar and his wife upon a
countryman is alleged; the grounds being that he had imputed bribery
on seeing another man's horse released while his own was seized for
service. Sundry other instances of misconduct and oppression are
charged against the postmaster, one of which is: that four men were
sent out with warrants to warn country towns to bring in horses;
that in two days about 200 were summoned, but that most of them were
believed to have been compounded for by the constables.
In reading this story of the proceedings of the postmaster and his
wife, the comment suggests itself, that "the grey mare must have been
the better horse."
On the 7th May 1638, a Mr. John Nicholas writes to his son, Mr.
Edward Nicholas, to the following effect, complaining of his local
postmaster:--"Edward Nicholas may do his country good, and especially
that neighbourhood, who are much oppressed by the postmaster of Sarum,
Roger Bedbury, the innkeeper of the Three Swans, in Sarum. Sends copy
of a warrant Bedbury has procured from the Secretaries of State. By
virtue thereof he sends his warrants to the constables to bring in
horses furnished, and to pay for their keep, and employs them, not in
His Majesty's service, but to his own benefit. Leonard Bowles, one of
the constables of the Hundred of Alderbury, being required, brought in
horses; and in his presence a minister, coming to the postmaster to
hire horses, he delivered to the minister one of them. The constable
asked the postmaster wherefore the minister rode post, imagining he
was not employed in His Majesty's service, to which the postmaster
answered, he rode for a benefice, as he thought. If Edward Nicholas
may prevent the postmaster's knavery, prays him to do so." From an
enclosure with this letter, it appears that, in issuing his warrant
to the constables to send in on the 9th May "six able horses, with
furniture, for His Majesty's service for two days and two nights, at
the charge of the owners," the postmaster relied upon and recited a
warrant from Secretaries Coke and Windebank, dated 13th February,
"for sending to the postmaster ten or twelve horses from New Sarum, a
six-miles' compass."
A week later, Mr. John Nicholas, finding that the prosecution of the
complaint was likely to prove troublesome, declares that he will have
nothing more to do with it. "Touching the postmaster," he writes, "I
will meddle no further, if there be such a business in it; but let the
constable, or who else finds himself wronged, follow it and inform
against him. It will be good service in any that shall do it, and
good for your own understanding to know the ground of the warrant,
and whether the postmaster may require the owner of the horse to pay
for his meat two days and two nights. It may be my own case, for the
constable has been to me for a horse. I put him off with good words;
but how I shall do it again, I know not; yet if it be too troublesome
to you, I pray you meddle no further." Mr. John Nicholas was one of
a very common type of men, who are ever ready to make a fuss over a
grievance in the first instance, but who are at all times forward to
draw someone else in to fight their battles for them.
There are grounds for supposing that at this time some order had been
issued, empowering the postmasters to keep in their stables supplies
of horses, taken up in the neighbourhood, and, while standing in the
stables, to be fed at the owners' expense. This seems the meaning of a
presentment made at the Grand Inquest at the Assizes holden at Bath on
the 2nd July 1638. The statement made is: "That of late there are come
commissions into the country, under the hand of the two Secretaries
of State, to all postmasters, for taking up such numbers of horses as
the postmasters shall think fit; and the postmasters take into their
stables ten or twelve horses at one time, and keep them two nights, and
then take in so many more; and if they have employment for any of them,
they pay the post price, otherwise they make the owners pay for their
meat and dressing what rate they please; but some, upon composition,
they release, which makes the burthen the heavier upon the rest. We
beseech you to present this grievance to His Majesty."
The way in which traffic was carried on in the places of country
postmasterships, and the duties delegated to deputies, is set forth in
a petition to the king, of February 1638, from Randolph Church, one of
His Majesty's gentlemen pensioners. Petitioner "has for sixteen years
served as serjeant-at-arms, and, since he left that place, in the place
wherein he now serves; during which time he never received benefit by
any suit; but he purchased some post places under Lord Stanhope, which
he has executed by deputies for many years. But now Lord Stanhope,
having surrendered his patent, petitioner's post places, to the value
of £200 per annum, are taken away, there being £650 due to him for
wages upon the said places; and now petitioner, being employed in the
prosecution of delinquents for converting timber to coal for making
iron, and having expended much money therein, and being likely to bring
great sums into the Exchequer, the means by which he should subsist
are taken away. Beseeches some such satisfaction out of moneys brought
into the Exchequer by his present service as may equal his places and
arrears."
There seems almost no end of the petitions which came up from the
postmasters upon all phases of their duties and pay. Thomas Carr,
postmaster of Berwick, thus complains: "Thomas Witherings, in
consideration of his grant of the letter office of England and foreign
parts, is to pay the posts their wages. Witherings has reduced the
wages of Thomas Carr from 2s. 4d. to 1s. per diem, all the rest being
cut off only but the third part of their pay, which will not be
sufficient to find horse and man to perform the service; moreover,
they are enjoined to more service than formerly, viz. to carry his
mail of letters forward and backward once a week gratis. Witherings
employs one at Berwick to carry his letters from thence to Edinburgh
for 20s. a week. Carr has offered to perform it for a great deal less;
but Witherings not only denies the same, but threatens to put Carr
out of his place if he go not speedily down, he waiting only for the
arrears of his post wages, without which he is not able to subsist.
Requests that his pay may be made 1s. 8d. per diem, that he may carry
the letters from Berwick to Edinburgh, and also that he may be sworn
His Majesty's servant, as the other posts are."
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.