1. At the beginning of the legislative session the most likely event appeared to be the repeal, rather than amendment, of the port act. JM, among others, had expected George Mason to lead its opponents in a successful assault on the act (JM to Jefferson, 12 May 1786). In fact JM had considered the measure “as lost almost at any rate. There was a majority agst. it last Session if it had been skilfully made use of” (JM to Monroe. 13 May 1786). It was not surprising, therefore, that on one of the first working days of the 1786 session a bill was ordered to be brought in repealing the act restricting foreign vessels to certain ports (JHDV description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond, In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , Oct. 1786, p. 6). During November and early December petitions from Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and the counties of Orange, Fauquier, and Prince William praying for repeal of the act were presented to the House (ibid., pp. 22, 45, 89–90). George Turberville did not present the bill for repeal until 2 Dec. (ibid., p. 82). According to JM the repeal had not been attempted because “Col. Mason has been waited for as the hero of the attack. As it is become uncertain whether he will be down at all, the question will probably be brought forward in a few days. The repeal were he present would be morally certain. Under the disadvantage of his absence it is more than probable” (JM to Jefferson, 4 Dec. 1786). Mason’s poor health prevented him from attending the session, and the proponents of repeal finally on 11 Dec. brought the bill to a vote without him. It failed 35–69 (JM voted against it). David Stuart wrote Washington that “the attempt to repeal the Port bill has failed. It appears from the accounts of the Naval officer for Norfolk, that more revenue has been already collected from that single port than what w[as?] received formerly from the whole State, in the space of a year. It only began to operate in June” (19 Dec. 1786 [DLC: Washington Papers]). On 13 Dec. a committee with JM on it was appointed to bring in a bill to amend the port act (JHDV description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond, In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , Oct. 1786, pp. 98, 101). Theodorick Bland presented the bill 27 Dec. Amended in a Committee of the Whole, the bill with amendments passed 10 Jan. 1787. The Senate further amended the bill; after disagreeing over the amendments, the two houses accepted the bill in its final form on 11 Jan. (ibid., pp. 125, 152–55 passim; see Hening, Statutes description begins William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; Richmond and Philadelphia, 1819–23). description ends , XII, 320–23).