How far was the acquisition of the Suez Canal a turning point for British policy towards Empire from 1763-1914?

Firstly, the acquisition of Suez Canal was the most significant turning point for British policy towards empire. Undoubtedly, the Suez Canal provided the British immense commercial value as by 1874, three quarters of tonnage passing through the canal was British obviously increasing the profits of British traders. Also, Gladstone rushed at the opportunity in increasing British influence over the canal by procuring the shares through loans from Rothchild’s without consulting parliament. This indicates how he saw the financial importance of the Suez Canal as evidenced by his impulsive buying of the bankrupt khedive’s shares highlighting how he truly believed it was a worthy investment. Indeed, dividends on the shares gradually increased from 4.7% in the first five years to 33% in 1911. As a result, the acquisition of the Suez Canal appears, at face value, ostensibly a financial transaction. However, the acquisition of the Suez Canal was dually important in the sense that it allowed the British to strengthen their hold on Egypt. Particularly, Gladstone’s desire to secure a ‘’great hold’ over Egypt highlights how the acquisition of the canal doesn’t merely provide the nation with financial gains but in increasing the political power of the British empire. In order to comprehend how this is a significant turning point, it is important to reflect on what occurred prior to the acquisition of the canal. For example, the acquisition of Singapore, Hong Kong and Zanzibar were driven largely by hopes of improving trade and consequently benefiting the British financially. Gladstone, however, openly admitted that his intention was to advance Britain’s political interests rather than financial ones. Ultimately, this represents a change in British policy towards empire as the British were indulging in operations that not only provided an economical advantage but also increasing British influence throughout the world. In addition, Gladstone making his desires public suggests how this was a route he hoped Britain took in future policy towards empire rather than just focusing on the financial benefits of an action. Also, not only does the canal provide a new opportunity for British influence in Egypt but it also allows them to secure a highway to their existing Indian empire which exemplifies the canals importance as well as illustrating the turning point the canal was for policy. Overall, while the acquisition of the Suez Canal can ostensibly be viewed as a financial transaction, it really emphasised how Britain were admittedly keen to increase its influence in other countries through its operations there, representing how this factor was a significant turning point. Moreover, the acquisitions of Singapore, Hong Kong and Zanzibar can be considered as turning points for British policy toward empire to an extent. The acquisition of each these places offered a different benefit that the British were not in receipt of previously therefore they were important for policy toward empire. For example, the entrepot model in Singapore led to its explosive growth as its tax-free status quickly drew merchants from all over the world. By 1846, the city included 20 British merchant houses as well as multiple Jewish, Chinese and Arab merchant houses. Clearly, the acquisition of Singapore came with many economic benefits but most importantly, it demonstrated to many young ambitious British politicians like Robert Peel the possibilities of an empire run on free trade. Therefore, it can be seen as turning point in this sense as it signalled a new era in imperial trade, a move away from imposing tariffs and taxes on shipping. It also reduced the danger of having to pass through the straits of Malacca, well known for piracy thus very dangerous for trading. However, it wasn’t as big a turning point for British policy toward empire because the acquisition of Singapore can be seen as an extension of the free trade movement such as the removal of trade restrictions on Ireland in 1779. As a result, the tax-free status of the entrepot in Singapore is not necessarily a significant change in direction as the government had previously committed themselves to actions that geared towards the principle of free trade, as in the case of Ireland. In addition, Singapore’s status as an entrepot wasn’t exactly unprecedented because Amsterdam and Antwerp had experienced economic growth using similar models. Thus, it suggests that the acquisition does not necessarily represent the British going into unknown territory as other countries had operated on similar models. Similarly, the acquisition of Hong Kong in 1842 was pursued for the economic benefits it could bring due to the success of Singapore, so this doesn’t represent a significant change in direction for British policy toward empire. Finally, the acquisition of Zanzibar led to an increase of British influence in the region, but it wasn’t territorial in nature. This is because British concerns were limited to safeguarding trade and of course gaining better economic benefits. Overall, these acquisitions individually weren’t as significant as a turning point because the reasons driving these acquisitions were the same each time, to improve trade thus increasing profits. However, the purchase of Suez Canal shares wasn’t just motivated by the financial reasons but the possibility of exerting control over Egypt so advancing Britain’s geopolitical interests. Therefore, the Suez Canal offered something different other than higher profits thus making it a significant turning point for British policy toward empire.