The Ilbert Bill was a bill introduced to the Imperial Legislative Council of India on 9 February 1883 governing the jurisdiction of Magistrates or Sessions Judges to try charges against "European British subjects" if they were themselves not European. The bill was drafted by Sir Courtenay Peregine Ilbert, the legal member of the Council of the Governor-General of India, during the Viceroyship of the Marquess of Ripon.
It is named after Courtenay Ilbert, who had originally proposed it for a revision of the previous Indian Criminal Procedure Act from 1861. Within this act, British subjects were not allowed to be tried under a court presided over by an Indian magistrate. The changes presented in the Ilbert Bill reduced the limitations for these officials, allowing British subjects to be tried by Indian magistrates who had reached seniority within the civil service. The bill was promoted by Lord Ripon who had been instructed by prime minister William Gladstone to reserve some of the law's more restrictive policies over native Indian magistrates.
However, the introduction of the bill led to intense opposition in Britain and from Britons living in India that ultimately played on ethnic tensions. The bill was ultimately enacted in 1884, but in a severely compromised state. The bitter controversy deepened antagonism between the British and Indians and was a prelude to the formation of the Indian National Congress one year later.
Controversy
Courtenay Ilbert drafted the "Bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, so far as it relates to the exercise of jurisdiction over European British subjects", which subsequently became known as the Ilbert bill. On 2 February 1883 he moved for leave to introduce the bill and it was formally introduced on 9 February 1883. Following the release of this new motion, controversies started to circulate between natives and British residents with reference to race and gender.
Race
The most vocal opponents of the bill were British tea and indigo plantation owners in Bengal, led by Griffith Evans, a Calcutta barrister. The European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association (which drew much of its membership from such plantation owners) was formed as a lobbying group to campaign against the Bill. Sir Bartle Frere, another vocal opponent, stated that the Ilbert Bill would "raise dangerous race hatred by inculcating the idea that justice which is good enough for natives is good enough for Europeans". The heat of the general protests was at its strongest on 28 February 1883 during a town hall meeting put on by the Bengal Chamber of Calcutta in which several emotional speeches were given. Other demonstrations continued to occur drawing in anywhere from 75,000 to 250,000 protesters. Deep racial prejudices became much more prevalent through propaganda declaring that Indian judges were unfit and untrustworthy regarding cases against European defendants.
Protests, rallies, and discourse on the subject included several racist tropes, such as cartoons of Indian magistrates with animal-like features, and using animal terms such as 'wily snakes' and 'unchangeable, spotted leopards.' Opponents of the bill also feared that as the number of natives seeking an education was increasing from European efforts in that regard, more magistrates would soon become eligible to preside over trials with British defendants.
On the other hand, the majority of the native Indians strongly supported the bill, and the European sense of racial superiority frustrated and infuriated them. The British government introduced European systems of education in place in order to create a well-educated Indian upper-class and the Ilbert Bill would have given more authority to Indian magistrates who were the product of these systems. Yet despite these frustrations, reports show that the Indian supporters of the bill were neither as vocal nor as well organized as the bill’s opponents.
Press
News outlets played a big role in fomenting the dispute around the bill, sparking outrage in Britain and in India, as the political press "actively endeavored to influence government legislation for India" for the first time. Just three days after the bill was first passed, the Times released an article attacking the changes, which was telegraphed to India and distributed to papers such as the Statesman and the Pioneer. The Gazette, the Times, and other newspapers continued to release statements condemning the bill and criticizing Lord Ripon’s desire to "please the native community at any cost". The widespread news reports invoked more opposition from those in Britain.