Yet several causes combined to prevent a rigid observance of these associations. The sacrifice of interest made by the merchants could be continued only under the influence of powerful motives. Suspicions were entertained of each other in the same towns; and committees to superintend the conduct of importers were charged with gross partiality. The different towns too watched each other with considerable jealousy; and accusations were reciprocally made of infractions of the association to a great extent. Letters were published purporting to be from England, stating that large orders for goods had been received; and the inconvenience resulting from even a partial interruption of commerce, and from the want of those manufactures which the inhabitants had been accustomed to use, began to be severely and extensively felt. In Rhode Island and Albany, it was determined to import as usual, with the exception of such articles as should be dutiable. On the remonstrances of other commercial places, especially of Boston, these resolutions were changed; and the hope was entertained that the general system on which the colonies relied, would still be maintained. [Sidenote: New York recedes in part from the non-importation agreement.] These hopes were blasted by New York. That city soon manifested a disposition to import as usual, with the exception of those articles only which were subject to a duty. At first, the resolution thus to limit the operation of the non-importation agreement, was made to depend on its being acceded to by Boston and Philadelphia. These towns refused to depart from the association as originally formed, and strenuously urged their brethren of New York to persevere with them in the glorious struggle. This answer was communicated to the people, and their opinion on the question of rescinding, or adhering to, was taken in from their respective wards. This determination excited the most lively chagrin in New England and Philadelphia. Their remonstrances against it were, however, ineffectual; and the example was soon followed throughout the colonies.[218] [Footnote 218: Minot. Prior documents. Gazette.] The people of New York alleged, in justification of themselves, that the towns of New England had not observed their engagements fairly; and that the merchants of Albany had been in the practice of receiving goods from Quebec. But no sufficient evidence in support of these assertions was ever produced. {1770} [Sidenote: March.] [Sidenote: Riot in Boston.]