Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 2.djvu/568

 many sites, a mistake which, they asserted, was to be laid at the door of the Burgesses, each of whom desired to have a town in his own immediate neighborhood, if not on his own plantation. It is much more probable, however, that the Burgesses clearly recognized the impracticable character of the schemes for the building of towns, and wished to diminish the inconvenience which the law entailed in requiring one at least to be erected in each county or one port of entry to be laid off there. They had their eyes, perhaps, not so much upon an advantage to be gained as upon an injury to be avoided.

The Act for Ports, in 1691, provided for the erection of a greater number of towns than the Cohabitation Act of 1680. For the counties of Charles City, Gloucester, Nansemond, Elizabeth City, York, James City, Middlesex, Northumberland, Rappahannock, and Accomac, the sites chosen were the same under both measures. The port for Lower Norfolk was again placed at the mouth of the eastern branch of Elizabeth River, for Stafford on Potomac Creek, for Northampton on Cherrystone Creek, and for Lancaster on the west side of the mouth of the Corotoman. In addition to these ports of entry and clearing, there were a number of points selected as places for selling and buying goods, namely, at Bermuda Hundred in Henrico, at the month of Pagan Creek in the Isle of Wight, at the mouth of Deep Creek in Warwick, at the mouth of Gray&#8217;s Creek in Surry, and at the mouth of Nominy in Westmoreland. Several of these spots had been surveyed under the terms of the law of 1680, and contained a number of residences as well as prisons and court-houses built of brick. The justices of the peace in each county decided upon the fifty acres which were to be set apart as the site for the county port;