ection of towns on each great river, to which all foreign trade
should be confined. Accordingly, in 1680, a Bill of Ports was passed.
"Wee are now grown sensible," wrote Secretary Spencer, "that our present
necessities, and too much to be doubted future miseries, are much
heightened by our wild and rambling way of living, therefore are
desirous of cohabitation, in order whereunto in ye late Assembly an Act
was made appointing a town in every County, where all Goods imported are
to be landed, and all Goods exported to be shipt off. And if this takes
effect, as its hoped it may, Virginia will then go forward which of late
years hath made a retrograde motion."[985]

But this attempt ended in dismal failure. In 1681, when the shipmasters
came to the appointed ports, they found that no shelter had been
constructed for their goods. Thinking the law nullified, or not yet in
operation, they traded as usual from private wharves. For this breach of
the law, some of them were prosecuted in the colonial courts, to their
own great loss and to the inconvenience of many of the planters.[986]
Loud wrangling and bitter animosities resulted throughout the colony,
and at length the King was compelled to suspend the law.[987]

In the Assembly of 1685 it was proposed to enact another Bill of Ports.
Accordingly an act was drafted in the House of Burgesses and, in due
time, sent up for the approval of the Council. The upper house, after
making several alterations, consented to the bill and returned it to the
Burgesses. The latter agreed to most of the changes, but struck out a
clause restricting the towns to two upon each river, and added an
amendment permitting one port to a county.[988] The Council in turn
yielded, but inserted a new clause, "That there should bee ffees
ascertained on Goods exported and imported for the support of those
Officers which should bee obliged to reside in those Ports".[989] As
"there was noe room in ye margint to write ye alteration ... it was
wrote in a piece of paper and affixt to ye Act".[990] When the bill came
back to the House, Major Robert Beverley, who was again the clerk of the
Assembly, acting it would seem upon his own initiative, tore off the
paper containing this amendment. The bill then came before the House
apparently assented to without change and was returned by them for the
signature of the Governor and the Councillors. Neither Effingham nor any
of the Council noticed the omission, and thinking