It seemed at this moment as if the British Lion was beginning to wake up, but the Chinese cared nothing for his growl from a distance. When Lord Palmerston, however, discovered (November 2, 1837) that Elliot could not possibly communicate with the Chinese Authorities otherwise than as a tributary barbarian petitioner, he shrank from the simple expedient of a naval demonstration which, by the destruction of the Bogue forts, would, in a couple of hours, have prevented years of misery. Nevertheless, Lord Palmerston once more enjoined Captain Elliot to continue to press, on every suitable opportunity, for the recognition, on the part of the Chinese Authorities, of his right to receive, direct from the Viceroy, sealed communications (not orders) addressed to himself without the intervention of the Hong Merchants. Whilst anxious that Elliot should have a distinct official position and gain it by the logic of plausible arguments, he left him unsupported by a sufficient fleet to apply the only logic the Chinese would have respected, the demonstration of power. When Elliot urged (November 19, 1837) that Lord Palmerston should at least write a letter to the Viceroy of Canton, as the Directors of the East India Company had done on several occasions, or send a Plenipotentiary to present, at the mouth of the Peiho, an autograph letter of Queen Victoria, claiming a settlement of all the grievances of British trade in China, Lord Palmerston explained that, in such a case, the question of the opium trade would have to be taken up, but that Her Majesty's Government did not yet see their way towards such a measure with sufficient clearness to justify them in adopting such a course at the moment.
What hampered Captain Elliot, next to his want of a fleet, was the undefined state of his jurisdiction which prevented both the Chinese Government and the foreign community in Canton understanding or recognizing his authority. Lord Palmerston sought to amend this defect by means of the China Courts Bill which was before Parliament at the end of the year 1838, but it was arrested in its progress, mainly in consequence of objections raised by Sir George Staunton.
