Because at that time Great Britain was a colonial power that saw burma and the far east in general as connected to its main colony, India.
In view of David Cameron's visit to Burma and the west in general's 'sucking up' to the military junta my best guess is a share in the abundant Natural Resources of that gentle country.
At this time England has no need or desire to take control of Burma. Burma is moving towards becoming a full and free democracy and the English(British) would want to support the people of Burma taking control of their own destiny.
Great Britain took over Burma because it wanted to expand its territories and because Burma was politically unstable. Burma gained independence from Great Britain in 1948.
britan wanted to gain more land
France took control of the Vietnamese in response to Britain's movement in Burma.
France took control of the Vietnamese in response to Britain's movement in Burma.
France took control of the Vietnamese in response to Britain's movement in Burma.
France took control of the Vietnamese in response to Britain's movement in Burma.
The Vietnamese
1671
Burma, now called Myanmar, in mainland, Southeast Asia.
Internal conflict in Burma happened in 1948-04.
His defeat of Charles I's forces allowed him to control England and have it follow the Commonwealth. He became a highly regarded official, "Lord Protector", and extended his influence to Scotland and Ireland.
go read a book and not be lazy you stupid bum, just kidding 1957
King Henry
-In 1685 James II became king of England. He was determined to take more control over the English government, both in England and in the colonies.