The non-import agreement (1768), which required American colonies to purchase English products through foreign countries, was the result of Britain`s attempt to find new sources of income for colonial defence and administration. Among these sources were the Townshend Acts, which imposed tariffs on glass, lead, paper, tea and paint, which passed through Parliament in June 1767 and came into force four months later. Most settlers went through difficult times in the 1760s, when money became scarcer, trade declined and the cost of living increased. Under such conditions, traders and consumers were reluctant to take part in a new campaign against British colonial policy and those who were prepared sought more conservative ways to protest tariffs. It was not far off in history when an embargo on the Stamp Act, an embargo very similar to the Boston boycott, was a success. The real threat of trade disruption has made the press of English traders on parialmnt and the removal of the stamp law. The Boston merchants would have hoped that such a tactic could work this time. The main reasons why the Boston boycott was not as successful as they thought were two. A third wave of economic embargo was formed in 1774. In protest against various parliamentary restrictions, the Continental Congress created the Continental Federation, which imposed non-import, non-import and non-export conditions on the colonies. However, in defiance of colonial wishes, British traders opened new export markets and the London government decided to dismantle the colonial rebellion. The war ensued. 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. As the British government did not recognize the reason for the colonial objections, a conflict between the metropolis and the colony became inevitable. In these complaints, Parliament saw a clear attempt to weaken its authority, the navigation laws, the trading system and thus the entire empire. [4] It was probably the only peaceful means for the American colonies that imposed their demands on the British government, the boycott of British products. These intentions were formed into an initiative of Boston merchants and traders that resulted in the Boston non-import agreement.