our present parliamentary representative, Sir Martin Browne Folkes, baronet. {901a} In 1724 and 1725, the decayed, unsafe, and dangerous state of the river and harbour, which had been much complained of for many years before, continued still to engage the attention of our rulers, as appears by the following memoranda in the Hall records—“August 3. 1724; this day _Col. Armstrong’s_ Report concerning the river, with severall maps, &c. were brought into this House.” again—“Jan. 4th. 1724–5; To apply to Parliament for reviving the Extinct Powers for Commissioners concerning the navigation of the river Ouze.” again—“Febr. 3. appointed a Comittee to state, settle, and consider of proper ways and means, by tonnage upon goods imported, to raise 2500_l._ per annum, stipulated to be employed in amending and restoring the navigation of this harbor.”—again {901b}—“June 7th. 1725; Ordered that _Mr. Badslade_ be paid 20_l._ for his disbursements for printing the severall schemes, cases, and answers, relating to this navigation.” In the latter part of 1726, an affair came on between the corporation and one _Henry Southwell_, a freeman, which ended rather disgracefully to the former. They seized a quantity of coals belonging to him, under pretence of their being foreign bought and foreign sold; for which he brought an action against the Town Clerk, which the corporation defended. They proceeded further, and actually disfranchised Southwell. Upon which he procured a mandamus, and obliged them to restore him to his freedom. This must have been not a little mortifying to them. They thought they had him entirely in their power, and could master him; whereas the mastery, in fact, belonged to him, and it so turned out that they were in his power: so that like the Irishman, {902} they _caught a Tartar_, and thereby brought themselves into a most humiliating dilemma, and exposed themselves to the ridicule and derision of the whole country. The Hall-records notice and memorizet his affair as follows: “Nov. 16th. 1726; ordered that the suit brought by Henry Southwell, a freeman, against Edw. Bradfield, Town-clerk, for seizing a parcell of coales, fforeign bought and fforeign sold, which came into this port in a ship, Wm. Coverdale, master, a foreigner, for Wm. Taylor, fforeigner, be defended, at the publick charge—and that Hen: Southwell be disfranchised for his collouring bargains and sales, contrary to his Oath of ffreedom, and using opprobious words (in his Letters) to the corporation, unless he shews good cause to the contrary, upon due notice to him for that purpose to be given.”—again—“Febr. 3rd. 1726–7. Ordered that Mr. Hen: Southwell, appearing and shewing no sufficient cause to the contrary, be disfranchised the freedom of this burgh, and he is disfranchised accordingly.”—again—“April 29th. 1728. _Ordered that the former order_, _made for discharging Hen_: _Southwell of the freedom of this burgh_, _be