Britain, London.
Opinions at home were divided over the digging of the Suez Canal.
Support and opposition were equally strong. Some believed that shortening the voyage was a good thing, while others feared that it would diminish Britain's standing.
But Parliament was deeply split over whether Britain needed to gain control of the Suez Canal Company.
Both sides agreed that the Suez Canal would hold strategic importance in the future. Britain was simply far away, and its earlier crushing defeat in the Mediterranean had also cast a shadow over the British people's confidence.
If the British Navy couldn't defend the Suez Canal, would it even make sense to hold a controlling interest in the Suez Canal Company?
Earl of Aberdeen was clearly outraged by this view. It wasn't just him—the entire British Navy, and even the shipbuilding, metallurgy, and armaments industries, refused to accept it.
They believed that controlling the Suez Canal was just as important as controlling the Strait of Gibraltar. It was all about preserving Britain's global hegemony.
Another argument made by the opposition was that Britain's economy was struggling, and the treasury shouldn't spend money competing for foreign resources. It should first address the crisis at home and provide loans to businesses in need.
The supporters believed that it was precisely because the economy was struggling that Britain needed to seek out a more stable source of growth. The Suez Canal was just such a source: stable and capable of bringing in immense profits.
Britain's prime minister at the time, Edward Smith-Stanley, believed they should strike while the iron was hot and seize control of the Suez Canal. That way, Britain would take the initiative.
Whether as a strategic hub after it opened or as a national investment, the Suez Canal project wouldn't cost Britain a penny.