Question: What did the colonial Whigs think of the new program?
About the article "Boston Tea Party", section "Townshend duty crisis".

Candidate passages:
The association of Toryism with the Lord North's government was also influential in British North America, and writings of British political commentators known as the Radical Whigs did much to stimulate colonial republican sentiment.
Early activists in the colonies called themselves "Whigs", seeing themselves as in alliance with the political opposition in Britain, until they turned to independence and started emphasising the label Patriots.
Later, the United States Whig Party was founded in 1833, focused on opposition to a strong presidency, just as the British Whigs had opposed a strong monarchy. 
Controversy between Great Britain and the colonies arose in the 1760s when Parliament sought, for the first time, to impose a direct tax on the colonies for the purpose of raising revenue.
Some colonists, known in the colonies as Whigs, objected to the new tax program, arguing that it was a violation of the British Constitution.
Britons and British Americans agreed that, according to the constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their elected representatives.
In Great Britain, this meant that taxes could only be levied by Parliament.
Colonists, however, did not elect members of Parliament, and so American Whigs argued that the colonies could not be taxed by that body.
According to Whigs, colonists could only be taxed by their own colonial assemblies.
Colonial protests resulted in the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1765, but in the 1766 Declaratory Act, Parliament continued to insist that it had the right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever".
When new taxes were levied in the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, Whig colonists again responded with protests and boycotts.
Merchants organized a non-importation agreement, and many colonists pledged to abstain from drinking British tea, with activists in New England promoting alternatives, such as domestic Labrador tea.
Smuggling continued apace, especially in New York and Philadelphia, where tea smuggling had always been more extensive than in Boston.
Dutied British tea continued to be imported into Boston, however, especially by Richard Clarke and the sons of Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson, until pressure from Massachusetts Whigs compelled them to abide by the non-importation agreement.
Parliament finally responded to the protests by repealing the Townshend taxes in 1770, except for the tea duty, which Prime Minister Lord North kept to assert "the right of taxing the Americans".
This partial repeal of the taxes was enough to bring an end to the non-importation movement by October 1770.
From 1771 to 1773, British tea was once again imported into the colonies in significant amounts, with merchants paying the Townshend duty of three pence per pound.
Boston was the largest colonial importer of legal tea; smugglers still dominated the market in New York and Philadelphia.
Edmund Burke's position in the Whig party during the parliamentary session of 1790-91 was awkward.
His "Reflections on the Revolution in France", published in November 1790, had been generally well received, including by many Whigs.
However after the leading Whig Charles James Fox publicly denounced it, and no fellow Whigs came out openly in Burke's defence.
Burke was repeatedly called an apostate from Whiggism.
The 12 May 1791 issue of the "Morning Chronicle" proclaimed Burke's expulsion from the Whig party:The great and firm body of the Whigs of England have decided on the dispute between Mr Fox and Mr Burke; and the former is declared to have maintained the pure doctrines by which they are bound together, and upon which they have invariably acted.
The consequence is, that Mr Burke retires from parliament.
This and other attacks provoked Burke into writing a pamphlet to prove his consistency and his fidelity to Whig principles.
Burke knew that his pamphlet would split the Whig party and possibly further isolate him from his colleagues but he was prepared to stand alone if necessary.
However he also knew that some Whigs, such as his patron Lord Fitzwilliam, did not share Fox's pro-revolutionary views, and that if he could provoke Fitzwilliam to publicly repudiate Fox, this might lead other Whigs to do the same.
Burke was in dire need of money to pay off debts but in his letter of 5 June 1791 in response to Fitzwilliam's offer of money, he declined, referring to his "inward sense of honour".
Burke went on to claim that "the difference between me and the party turns upon no trivial Objects...the world is threatened with great changes".
His "Reflections" were intended "in the first instance, of service to the publick, in the second, to the party".
Despite the initial favourable reception of the book, Burke "soon found, that things were much changed":There were those in the party, who chose rather to injure themselves than to be so served.
I found that great, and almost systematick pains were taken to discredit that work in the Party, to get its principles disclaimed; and of course (for medium there is none) to get the Principles of Paine, Priestley, Price, Rouse, Mackintosh, Christie &ca &ca &ca magnified and extolled, and in a sort of obscure and undefined manner to be adopted as the Creed of the party.
The supper at Brooke's was a sort of Academy for these Doctrines.
Individuals, little courted before, were separately talked over, and, as it were, canvassed.
Burke wanted to portray the whole Whig party as a pro-revolutionary party in order to provoke the anti-Jacobin element in the Whig party to come out publicly against the French Revolution and its British supporters.
He wrote to his son on 5 August:As to the party, in which I once acted, and to which I am still inwardly tied by great affection, you know that the whole of those who think with the French Revolution (if in reality they think at all seriously with it) do not exceed half a Score in both Houses.
If two or three, who, I think doubtful, were added, you see the difference would not be very material.
They who want to move have nothing to fear from this Nation or from any part of it.
Those who wish them well are strong.
Their illwishers are weak.
It may be asked, why I represent the whole party as tolerating, and by a toleration countenancing, those proceedings.
It is to get the better of their inactivity, and to stimulate them to a publick declaration of, what every one of their acquaintance privately knows, to be as much their Sentiments as they are yours or mine. 
What Jail Is Like is an EP by the band The Afghan Whigs. 
Anne, however, expected kindness and compassion from her closest friend.
Sarah was not forthcoming in this regard and frequently overpowered and dominated Anne.
One major political disagreement occurred when Sarah insisted that her son-in-law, Charles Spencer, the third Earl of Sunderland, be admitted into the Privy Council.
Sarah allied herself more strongly with the Whigs, who supported the Duke of Marlborough in the war; and the Whigs hoped to utilise Sarah's position as royal favourite.
Anne refused to appoint Sunderland: she disliked the radical Whigs, whom she saw as a threat to her royal prerogative.
Sarah used her close friendship with the Earl of Godolphin, whom Anne trusted, to eventually secure such appointments, but continued to lobby Anne herself.
She sent Whig reading materials to Anne in an attempt to win her over to her own preferred political party.
In 1704, Anne confided to Lord Godolphin that she did not think she and Sarah could ever be true friends again.