Ilbert Bill
The Ilbert Bill was a legislative proposal introduced in 1883 in British India, aimed at reforming the legal system by allowing Indian judges to try European defendants. This bill emerged during a period of significant political and social tension, following the promotion of an Indian civil servant, Behari Lal Gupta, to a position where he would oversee European cases. The proposal sparked widespread outrage among the European community in India, who felt threatened by the idea of being tried by Indian magistrates, leading to the formation of the European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association to oppose the bill.
The ensuing debate highlighted deep-seated racial tensions and the complexities of colonial governance, as many British officials argued against the bill on the grounds of India's unique cultural diversity. Despite significant protests and public meetings, a compromise was eventually reached, resulting in the bill's passage on January 25, 1884, which included provisions for European defendants to be tried by a jury that included members of their own community.
The controversy surrounding the Ilbert Bill was significant for Indian nationalism, as it galvanized opposition against colonial rule and underscored the inequities present in the legal system. The events surrounding the bill's introduction contributed to the rise of organized political movements in India, culminating in the formation of the Indian National Congress, which played a pivotal role in the struggle for independence from British rule.
Ilbert Bill
Date January 25, 1884
British India’s Ilbert Bill allowed Indians to try Europeans in courts of law. It caused an uproar among Europeans in India, who launched a successful protest movement. The bill was modified to favor Europeans, but the agitation over it helped develop India’s national consciousness. The Indian National Congress was founded two years later, in 1885.
Also known as Criminal Procedure Amendment Code Bill
Locale Calcutta, India
Key Figures
Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert (1841-1924), law member of the Indian viceroy’s executive council, 1882-1886Lord Ripon (George Frederick Samuel Robinson; 1827-1909), first marquis and second earl of Ripon and viceroy and governor-general of India, 1880-1884Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-1894), legal member of the Indian viceroy’s executive council, 1869-1872Sir William Wilson Hunter (1840-1900), British historian and member of the Indian civil service
Summary of Event
Founded in 1600, the British East India Company became the dominant power in India after the Battle of Plassey in June, 1757. It established the three presidencies of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, each of which had its own legal system and high court. In addition, on an ad hoc basis, the British established law courts in the districts that covered criminal and civil procedure for Indians based on Hindu, Islamic, or local common law. Such law was dispensed through British magistrates by members of the Indian civil service. It had been established that Europeans had the right to be tried in a high court before a jury of their (European) peers, and this practice was confirmed by the code of criminal procedure of 1861. Thus, in the event that an Indian had cause to engage in legal action against a British subject, both the British defendant and the Indian plaintiff would have to be transported as many as one thousand miles to one of the three presidencies’ high courts.
The difficulty and expense of providing transportation to high courts persuaded the government in 1872 to allow district magistrates very limited powers to imprison and fine Europeans. Immediately, the question arose of whether Indian magistrates could try Europeans, but the issue was moot because all of the magistrates were British. In 1882, however, Behari Lal Gupta, an Indian member of the judicial section of the Indian civil service, was promoted to the post of sessions judge in upper Bengal, a post in which he would preside over European defendants. The promotion thus brought the issue to a head and led to the introduction of the Ilbert Bill, which was aimed at bringing fairness and uniformity to the legal system in Bengal by putting Indian judges on the same footing as British judges.
Lord Ripon had been sent to India as viceroy by the Liberal prime ministerWilliam Ewart Gladstone. He was instructed to reverse the conservative and belligerent policies of the previous viceroy, the first earl of Lytton (viceroy 1876-1880), and to reestablish good relations with leading Indian figures. The Ilbert Bill was one of several liberal measures he promoted. As soon as the legislation was proposed, however, a storm of protest arose from the European community in Calcutta. The idea of Europeans being tried by Indians was anathema to most of the British colonials. Ripon came in for enormous enmity, he was boycotted, and there were even threats to kidnap him and take him to England.
On February 2, 1883, Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, the law member of the executive council, introduced the bill in the Imperial Legislative Council of India. Three days later, on February 5, the attack on the bill and the administration began. Opponents of the bill created the European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association to defend their privileges. Indians supported the bill, and the stage was set for a major confrontation.
The height of the protest movement was reached on the afternoon of February 28, when a large protest meeting against the bill was held in Calcutta’s town hall. The meeting was attended by an estimated three to five thousand people. European shops and offices were closed so people could attend the meeting, which was presided over by the sheriff of Calcutta. A motion was made stating that, among other things, the bill was unnecessary, it was based on no sound principle, and it would stir up race antagonism and jealousy not seen since the Sepoy Mutiny (1857-1858). The speeches that followed were intemperate and generated a great deal of rancor, as speakers argued that Indians could never be trusted with power over Europeans.
Opponents of the bill in England, such as the jurist and former legal member of the viceroy’s executive council Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, believed they were arguing not on racist grounds but on the principle that India was fundamentally different from Europe. The British had acknowledged this difference by earlier creating separate codes for Hindu and Muslim law. A country such as India with its diversity of people and traditions could not be governed by one uniform system of law. It was natural, then, to have a special code for Europeans.
Stephen’s critics, especially Sir William Wilson Hunter, argued that British rule in India was committed to the eradication of special privileges for any one community and the creation of a common system of law applicable to all. The Ilbert Bill was one of a series of measures designed to whittle away class privilege. Stephen’s reply to this was that if the British wanted to treat everyone equally then they had no right to rule India, because the British Raj (government in India) was an absolute government not based on consent but on conquest. The only way to establish equality in India, Stephen pointed out, would be for the British to leave the subcontinent.
The argument that if the British wanted equality in India they should leave was one that liberals could not answer and preferred to avoid. The debate on the issue was carried on in both the House of Commons in London and in the Imperial Legislative Council in Calcutta. Informally, it was the talk of the town in the clubs and homes of Europeans in India.
On December 22, a “concordat” was finally reached between Sir Griffith Evans (1840-1902), a member of the legislative council arguing on behalf of the European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association, and Sir Aukland Colvin (1838-1904), representing the government. The compromise established that session judges would be ex officio justices of the peace with the ability to try Europeans and to assess fines of up to two thousand rupees and imprisonment of up to six months. The most important component of the “concordat” was that European and British-born subjects had the right to be tried by a jury, half of which would consist of Europeans or Americans. As a result of this compromise, which had the reluctant blessing of Ripon, who had lost the support of his entire cabinet apart from Ilbert, the bill was finally passed on January 25, 1884, and became law.
Significance
As a result of the Ilbert Bill controversy, Indians realized they could not expect justice or fairness from the British when it came to their own interests. They saw more explicitly than ever the connection between British colonialism and British racism. One of the major Indian political leaders of the time, Sir Surendranath Banerjea (1848-1925), said that when the Ilbert Bill was introduced no self-respecting Indian could sit idle, as it was a patriotic duty to oppose it. The controversy, therefore, helped crystallize Indian national consciousness. It taught Indians the power of organization. It showed them how the government could be forced to change its legislation through an organized campaign of opposition. The year following the passage of the bill, the first all-India political party, the Indian National Congress (INC), was founded at Bombay. The INC became the primary party of Indian nationalism and led India to independence in 1947. The Ilbert Bill was an important step in the nascence of the independence movement.
Bibliography
Hirschmann, Edwin.“White Mutiny”: The Ilbert Bill Crisis in India and Genesis of the Indian National Movement. New Delhi, India: Heritage, 1980. Standard study on the Ilbert Bill. Offers a detailed analysis of the crisis and its aftermath. Includes texts of the principal speeches given at the town hall meeting on February 28, 1883, and the final act of 1884.
Ilbert, Courtenay. The Mechanics of Law Making. Reprint. Union, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange, 2000. A handbook for law makers written by the man who introduced the Ilbert Bill in 1883.
Metcalfe, Thomas R. Ideologies of the Raj. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1994. This volume in the New Cambridge History of India series deals with Great Britain’s justification and legitimation of its rule in India.
Sinha, Mrinalini. “Reconfiguring Hierarchies: The Ilbert Bill Controversy, 1883-1884.” In Feminist Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, edited by Reina Lewis and Sara Mills. New York: Routledge, 2003. A feminist reading of the Ilbert Bill controversy and its relationship to gender hierarchies in colonial India.