This large trade would be seriously diminished if Burma were to cease to be a province of the Empire. The ports of Burma, if held by an enemy, would be a constant menace to India, the Straits Settlements, and Ceylon; and, indeed, it is difficult to contemplate the loss of strength which the Empire would incur if Burma passed from its rule. It would mean eventually the loss of India, and the loss of India would mean the ruin of the British Empire.
The only direction in which Burma can be a source of weakness to the Empire is in the fact that it requires a garrison for its defence.
The total strength of troops in Burma is 10,629 men, of whom 8,852 are Europeans and the rest natives. During the South African War a British regiment and 800 British Mounted Infantry were spared from the garrison, and in times of stress even more troops might be spared. There are 2,750 British or European volunteers in Burma who could be made available in case of necessity; and it cannot be doubted that, if we ceased to hold Burma, we should require a very much stronger force for the defence of the Indian provinces on the borders of Burma and of the Indian sea-coast. The loss of Burma would thus mean the loss of power, and would also be a very grave blow to our prestige and to our commercial prosperity. Thousands of Englishmen find employment in Burma as officials, as merchants and traders, on the railways, in the forests, on sea-going and river steamers, and in many other ways. These men would be added to the great army of the unemployed, which presents a sufficiently difficult problem already.
Then, too, there would be the loss of capital, to say nothing of the public buildings, railways, canals, and roads. There are the European-owned factories, mills, oil-wells, river-steamers, and other valuable property, which would be irretrievably lost It needs no argument, I think, to show that Burma is too valuable a
