Parliament finally responded to the protests by abolishing the townshend taxes in 1770, with the exception of the tea tax that Prime Minister Lord North kept to assert « the right to taxation of Americans. » This partial abolition of taxes was enough to put an end to the non-import movement until October 1770. From 1771 to 1773, British tea was again imported in significant quantities into the colonies, with merchants paying the Townshend tax of three pence per pound. Boston was the largest colonial importer of legal tea; Smugglers still dominated the New York and Philadelphia markets. This boycott lasted until 1770, when the British Parliament was forced to repeal the laws against which the Boston Non-Import Agreement was intended. B. How does this agreement complement and complicate James Otis` assertion (speech against aid works) that « a man`s house is his castle »? Non-import agreements have not only contributed to the upsurriving of undesirable behaviour, but have also contributed to lower exchange rates and the clearing of inventories filled with importers. The impact of the Boston non-import agreement and all similar agreements has been considerable. About 60 merchants and merchants signed the agreement on August 1, 1768, and within two weeks, all but sixteen Boston merchants, merchants and business owners had joined the boycott. Boston craftsmen, craftsmen and other merchants signed the agreement with joy in the hope that the boycott would generate business for them. In the space of weeks and months, almost all ports and regions of the Thirteen Colonies adopted similar boycotts to protest and undermine the Townshend Revenue Act, although many merchants and traders in the South with loyalist tendencies refused to cooperate. Smuggling was widespread in the colonies.
The effects of British merchants who acted with the American colonies were alarming. Traders lost money that shipped their goods to the colonies, where they would not be received. Most of the time, the goods were never left ashore. If they were, they would rot on the docks or in warehouses, or were looted by the settlers. The situation was a nightmare for customs officers who could not collect taxes on goods that were not left ashore or were never sold. First, by addressing James Otis Jr., who advised the Massachusetts House of Representatives to petition the British King. This led to the Massachusetts Circular letter, written by Samuel Adams and James Otis Jr., which was sent to other colonies and recommended collective action against the British Parliament and the Townshend Act. Such colonial initiatives have sparked a debate over whether the British parliament has the right to collect taxes, with the sole intention of increasing revenues. The colonial argument, also imposed by Dickinson, was that they could not be taxed without elected representatives (« no taxation without representation »). Parliament`s counter-argument was a duty to protect its citizens and their subjects. These colonial attempts to deny this British policy came to an end with the dissolution of the New York and Massachusetts assemblies.