The Globe, 17 August 1819
CHARGE OF RAPE
Bow Street
Captain Mills, of Chelsea, was charged with committing a rape on Hannah Whitehorn, a girl of only fifteen years of age, at the time she lived as a servant in his house.
The charge was brought forward by the girl’s parents. It was stated that the girl was not able to attend, in consequence of the ill-treatment she had received.
This was confirmed by Mr. Campbell, a medical student, and Mr. Fincham, a medical gentleman, of Spring-gardens, who had examined the girl, and who also stated that the girl had informed Mr. Campbell that the Prisoner first made his attack upon her by force and afterwards gave her noyeau [a nut liqueur], &c. till he succeeded.
The Captain denied the charge most positively, and entreated that Mr. Astley Cooper might be allowed to examine the girl on his part. He stated himself to be a Magistrate, a housekeeper, and offered bail to any amount, and Mr. Drummond, his banker, would be his bail. He complained of the treatment of a man who had him in custody after the warrant was issued, while in a public-house, but the man’s answer was completely satisfactory to Sir Nathaniel Conant, that the Captain put on his hat and wanted to go out of the room, and he resisted him.
He was committed for further examination.
Saunders’s News-Letter, 22 September 1819
Captain Samuel Mills, who this morning appeared in Court with his bail, and surrendered, was indicted for committing a rape upon Hannah Whitehorn, a girl fifteen years of age last Christmas, on the 29th July, at Chelsea.
The Captain, who is a middle-aged man, was fashionably dressed in black.
Hannah Whitehorn said that, on the 28th July last she went to live as servant to the prisoner. On the night after, about twelve o’clock, he came and pulled her into the parlour and gave her some noyeau, which made her sick and obliged her to go into the garden. After she came in, he again called her into the parlour, gave her the candle, and pushed her up stairs, notwithstanding all the resistance, she could make. He prevented her from going into her own room, and pulled her into his. She then described the nature of the outrage which she charged the prisoner with having committed, but from her description of it, it appeared she had transmitted no communication to her mother of the treatment she received until the 13th of August.
She underwent a long cross examination from Mr. Barry, in the course of which she said she was in the habit of sitting in the parlour with her master during the time she remained in the house, sometimes until so late as twelve or one o’clock, and in conversation with him. Her statements in reply to Mr. Barry’s questions were so full of improbabilities as to the manner in which she alleged the outrage to have been committed, that Mr. Baron Graham interposed, and asked the Jury whether they could think of going further into such a case? It was however proceeded upon, at the earnest desire of the prisoner’s Counsel, and in justice to his character, and at length the replies of the prosecutrix became so glaringly inconsistent, that the Court said it was impossible to give any credit to her evidence, and the Jury instantly returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. Baron Graham said, the whole statement of the prosecutrix appeared to be a foul imputation on the prisoner’s character.
An extraordinary scene then took place in Court. A gentleman, whose name is Mr. Hector Campbell, stood up in the witness’s box, and said he came to do justice to the character of the prosecutrix. The poor girl had, he said, carried a good character with her to the prisoner’s; she was a virgin when she went into his service, and she came out polluted.
Mr. Adolphus complained strongly of this gentleman’s intrusion after the verdict was recorded.
Mr. Baron Graham then asked the gentleman who he was. He said he was a witness, and that not a word had been said about the pistols that were lying on the prisoner’s table, and other matters. He was proceeding with great animation to address the Court relative to the conduct of the prisoner, against whom he said he was actuated by no personal feeling, when Mr. Baron Graham said, what is all this about? do you mean to speak as a witness? if so you must be sworn.
Mr. Campbell — “I am sworn.”
Dr. Adolphus — “But the trial is now over.”
Mr. Campbell — “I must request a hearing; the girl has been cruelly treated.”
Mr. Baron Graham — “If you had anything to say, why did you not go before the Magistrate? I don’t see your name in the depositions. What is it you want to talk about? When you say the girl suffered the cruel treatment you describe, do you speak of your own knowledge? Who are you, or what are you? Are you a professional man?”
Mr. Campbell — “I have been in the service of my country: I have studied and I understand surgery and medicine, though I don’t practise as a professional man.” He was proceeding in a very warm and empassioned strain, to advert to the treatment which he alleged the girl had received, when Mr. Adolphus and Mr. Barry again interfered and protested agains the irregularity of the proceeding. Mr. Campbell still persevered in his attempts to address the Court relative to the trial, when Mr. Baron Graham called out for the tipstaff, and said, “If you don’t stop your speech and go out of that, I’ll put you in a place where you will be obliged to keep quiet.”
The officers of the Court immediately removed Mr. Campbell from the witness’s box, and he reluctantly yielded to their efforts to expel him from Court; as he retired near the door, he still kept exclaiming against the result of the trial.
Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, 25 September 1819
[Letter]
TRIAL OF CAPTAIN MILNES
Correspondence between the Hon. Baron Graham and H. Campbell, Esq., F.A.S. occasioned by his Lordship ordering the latter out of Court unheard, in the “King against Milnes,” for rape, on the 18th instant. Mr. Campbell having published a letter to his Lordship on that occasion:*
“Sir — I am not sorry that I have heard from you, because it gives me concern that, in the warmth of the moment, I treated you with asperity; but you certainly were in the wrong, and persisted. When you rose, the prosecution was at an end, and your evidence was not called for: you will find yourself mistaken when you say that no verdict was given. The Jury were not called upon to try whether the conduct of the prisoner towards a girl so young was profligate and base but whether he had committed a rape; and the girl on whose evidence the charge solely rested related a story (being, perhaps, confounded by the situation in which she was placed) not merely improbable, but impossible; and if credited in any degree, her evidence fell short of what was necessary to prove a case which the prisoner was to answer with his life. That was my opinion and, I believe, of my brother Judges, and as you heard, of the Jury. The enquiry into the state and condition of the girl became unnecessary, and consequently unfit for discussion in a Court of Justice. Your evidence was, therefore, not called for, and certainly would have been met by contrary opinions. Some questions were put to convey an idea that the girl was diseased; but her answers negatived that insinuation, and no evidence was offered to contradict her. By stopping that enquiry, therefore, I have done no injury to the girl, nor to her parents. I have endeavoured to explain my conduct, because I think that, with no bad motive, probably a laudable one, you have mistaken it; and suffer my conduct to rest upon the true report and just apprehension of what passed upon the trial. —I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ROBERT GRAHAM.”
“Bedford-square, Sept 23”
“Mr. Campbell feels pleasure in subscribing to the reason, law, and justice in most of the leading features in the Hon. Baron Graham’s Letter to him. He, however, respectfully dissents from one point, which may have escaped his Lordship’s notice in the confusion into which the Court was thrown – namely, a subsequent assertion of Mr. Adolphus, that ‘he was prepared to prove the girl diseased.’ Mr. Campbell justifies his denial of the assertion, at the moment, on the best imaginable grounds; for had she been diseased then, she must be so still, she having no medicine to remove the complaint, although now she is perfectly well in her person. (The cure of her mind,however, is beyond the skill of Mr. Campbell.) Hence, he has to observe, that it was to prevent the Court Reports going abroad before the world with the erroneous assertion in the brief of Mr. Adolphus. Mr. Campbell, with all possible respect for the Learned Judge and Counsel connected with the unfortunate case, intends to keep the letter to his Lordship before the Public, for the purpose of exciting the sympathy and relief which an involved and almost deranged and broken-hearted father, a lame and helpless mother, and a ruined and repentant girl, 15 years old, may experience from a feeling British Public.
“HUGH CAMPBELL”
20, Suffolk-street, Sept 23″
*The letter of Mr. Baron Graham is an answer to a long letter send to his Lordship by Mr. Campbell, but which it is unnecessary to publish, as the contents may be inferred from the answer.
Evening Mail, 31 May 1820
THE KING V. HANNAH WHITEHORN
This was an indictment under circumstances which excited considerable interest.
It will be recollected, that some time in August last, Captain Mills, of Smith-street, Chelsea, was charged by his servant, a girl named Whitehorn, with having committed a rape upon her person. Captain Mills was tried before Mr. Baron Graham, at the Old Bailey, in the month of September, and acquitted; and he now in his turn became the assailant, and indicted his ci-devant prosecutrix for perjury.
Mr. Scarlett, in addressing the Jury, on the part of the plaintiff, adverted to the extreme difficulty of establishing perjury in general, and the still greater difficulty in making out such a charge in a case like the present. The learned counsel then entered into a copious detail of circumstances of the case, from which it appeared, that Captain Mills, who had formerly served in the army, and was a man infirm in health and retired in habits, though not competent fortune, came in the beginning of 1819 to reside at Chelsea, and, in the month of July, wanting a temporary servant, engaged the defendant, upon the recommendation of a person of the name of Price. Upon the 28th of July the girl entered the service of the plaintiff, who immediately perceived that she was in bad health; and from some cause or other, extremely offensive in her person. After enduring that which was extremely unpleasant to him for about sixteen days, he found it impossible to keep his new servant any longer; and accordingly sent for her mother, paid her wages, and, as he imagined, got rid of her. The day upon which this discharge took place was Friday; and on that evening Captain Mills went to Vauxhall, from whence returning about five o’clock on Saturday morning he found a letter from Mr. Price, stating that Hannah Whitehorn had preferred a charge of rape against him: much astonished, he, before he went to bed, wrote to Mr. Price, who resided at Charing-cross, alleging the falsehood of the accusation, and promising to come to town immediately. On the Monday morning, accordingly, Captain Mills did call upon Mr. Price, who then said that Hannah Whitehorn had not only accused him of violence to her person, but also with having communicated to her a certain complaint; upon which he immediately caused himself to be attended by Mr. Astley Cooper and Mr. Brodie, who were satisfied that, for the latter part of the charge, there could not possibly, be any foundation. The plaintiff then returned to the house of Mr. Price, and sent for the girl’s mother; the mother came, attended by a constable; the plaintiff was carried before a magistrate, and the girl, being produced, made a deposition against him. The result was that Captain Mills was, in the first instance, committed to prison; next, upon the affidavits of some medical men, as to the second part of the charge, admitted to bail; and, in conclusion, tried at the Old Bailey, and acquitted. Mr. Scarlett then proceeded to advert to portions of the evidence given by Hannah Whitehorn upon the trial.
Mr. William Oliver, shorthand writer, proved the notes which he had taken at the trial.
The assignment of perjury was upon the following points: That the defendant had sworn, first, after the alleged injury, she had continued in the house of the plaintiff from the 29th July to the 13th August: second, that she had not had any opportunity to inform her mother of what had passed; and, third, that the illness she complained was not occasioned by a certain disorder specified.
Captain Mills was then called. This gentleman stated, that the defendant came to live with him upon the 28th of July – she was merely a temporary servant until he should arrange his establishment: as soon as she entered his employ he was disgusted by her extreme dirtiness; and on the 13th August he sent her away. While she continued in his service he never offered the smallest liberty to her. He went out constantly – dined out every day, and during his absence she might have gone out at her pleasure. He did repeatedly send her of errands.
Upon cross-examination he admitted that a girl named Sarah Dilly had come to live with him on the same evening with the defendant, but had been so little pleased with her new place, that she had left it the next morning: that, in the course of five months, he had had eight women servants; and that two of them had lodged a complaint against him at the police-office, Queen-square, which was compounded upon his paying £1 to each of the parties; that complaint was not of the same nature as the charge of Hannah Whitehorn.
Catherine Vigor was washerwoman to Captain Mills, and saw Hannah Whitehorn at his house between the 29th of July and the 13th of August; she made no complaint to witness of any ill-treatment having been offered to her.
Louisa Hodges, a child apparently not more than eleven years of age, said that she had lived as servant with Captain Mills: she went to him four days before Hannah Whitehorn left him. Captain Mills was out during the greater part of two days, and she and Hannah Whitehorn were left together. Hannah Whitehorn herself went out four times during his absence, but did not stay long. Remembered that Hannah Whitehorn complained of illness on the third day that she (witness) was in the house, and wrote to her mother: next day she went away.
Mr. Brodie, surgeon, saw the defendant in August last, after she had accused Captain Mills. Mr. Roe and Mr. Finchard, two other surgeons, saw her also. Witness thought from the symptoms which he perceived that the defendant was most severely afflicted with the malady which she had denied in her evidence upon the trial. It was possible that those symptoms might arise from other complaints; but it was very unlikely. He saw no marks of violence upon her.
Mr. Box, surgeon of Newgate, saw Captain Mills immediately after his confinement, and saw no appearance of any such complaint as that which the last witness had attributed to the defendant.
Mr. Denman then commented on the circumstances which had been left unexplained in the case: the sudden departure of Sarah Dilly; and the rapid succession and eternal variety of the plaintiff’s female domestics.
Mr. M. Clark and Mr. William Priest then spoke to the defendant’s character; and the Rev. John Day, who keeps a day-school in Orange-court, Leicester-square, and has done so for twenty years bore witness to the good conduct of the defendant at the time when (from 9 o’clock till 12, and from 2 till 5) she enjoyed the advantage of Mrs. Day’s tuition.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the evidence, directed the particular attention of the jury, not to the charge of rape, whether disproved or not, but to the specific charges contained in the indictment before them. In cases of perjury the law required the evidence of two witnesses; and, therefore, upon that assignment which regarded the peculiar malady, the case was not made out; for one witness only (Mr. Brodie) had been called. Upon the second point, that she remained in the house of the plaintiff from the 29th of July to the 13th of August, the Jury must collect from the evidence which had been read to them (the evidence of Hannah Whitehorn upon the trial), whether she meant to say that she all that while continued in his house, without going out, or that she only remained in his service. Upon the cross-examination it had appeared that she admitted, without hesitation, that she had gone out of the house. Upon the third point, that she had not, between the 29th of July and 13th of Aug., had an opportunity of disclosing the injury of which she afterwards complained to her mother, the jury were to form their own opinion. It was to be observed, however, that the daughter was living at Chelsea, and the mother at Charing-cross; that there was no proof that she had, in fact, ever seen her mother; that there was no proof that she had ever been absent, during any length of time, from her master’s house; and that, although if she pushed her opportunities to the utmost, she certainly might have seen her mother, yet that there was no proof that any opportunity had occurred which the girl under such circumstances would be absolutely bound to consider in that light.
The Jury, without hesitation, found the defendant not guilty.
Evening Mail, 26 June 1820
COURT OF KING’S BENCH, Westminster, June 24.
At Nisi Prius.
THE KING V. H. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
LIBEL.
The circumstances which gave rise to this prosecution have already in various shapes been laid before the public. The prosecutor, Captain Mills of Pimlico, was indicted some time since for a rape upon Hannah Whitehorn, a female employed in his service. Of that charge Captain Mills was acquitted: the girl was afterwards indicted for perjury, and she was also acquitted.
During the trial of Captain Mills the present defendant interrupted proceedings, by attempting to state some circumstances which were deemed irrelevant, and improperly introduced by the judge: and, persevering in his design, was excluded from the Court.
Mr. Campbell then published a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to Mr. Justice Graham,” reflecting upon the character of Captain Mills, asserting the innocence of the girl, and impugning the validity of the verdict, to which he prefixed the following motto:–
“——multi
Committunt eadem diverso crimina fato;
Ille crucem pretium sceleris tulit hic diadema” —Juvenal
“Ev’ry age relates that equal crimes unequal fate have found;
While one villain swings, another villain’s crown’d.”
It was for this publication, which Captain Mills considered as a libel, that Mr. Campbell was not called upon to answer.
Mr. Scarlett, for the prosecution, briefly detailed the facts which have already been stated: he spoke of several letters, most libellous in their import, and accompanied with caricatures, which had been sent by Mr. Campbell to Captain Mills; and treated the prosecution against that gentleman for rape as a conspiracy, in which the present defendant had been a prime agent.
Edward Thomas, a bookseller, proved the printing and publication of the pamphlet in question.
Mr. Campbell, having requested that the whole of the libel might be read, addressed the Jury at length through which our limits will not permit us to follow him. After adverting to his inability to contend with a man possession the talent and experience of the prosecutor’s counsel, he declared, that whatever might be the errors of his letter to Justice Graham, they were not errors arising from any sordid, interested or unchristian motive, but springing purely from the detestation which he felt for cruelty, brutality, and oppression. He might be mistaken; but his conscience had been his guide. The defendant then proceeded to state, that he had held the rank of lieutenant in the service of his country, in which situation he had witnessed many engagements; that he had subsequently studied surgery, and was not applying himself to law. As a medical man, he then said, he had been called upon to attend Hannah Whitehorn; and, after delineating the wretched condition in which he found the girl, and asserting her innocence of certain charges which had been preferred against her in the indictment for perjury, he entered into a most bitter commentary upon the general character and conduct of the present prosecutor.
The Lord Chief Justice here interfered, and declared that the course of defence taken by Mr. Campbell was unjustifiable in itself, and contrary to all practice.
Mr. Campbell expressed regret for his mistake, but neglected to correct it. He said that his interference upon the trial of Captain Mills had been produced by a desire to prevent certain statements, which he knew to be untrue, from going forth to the public; and attacked the reporters (but with great good humour) for having distinguished him upon that occasion by the name of Hector, a cognomen to which he had no title. Quixotic or Utopian ideas of perfection he disclaimed; but he thought that both policy and humanity pointed out the propriety of encouraging purity and virtuous feeling among women in the inferior walks of society. Mr. Campbell then read a Royal proclamation for the encouragement of religion and morality: in the spirit of which proclamation he contended he had acted, and upon the letter of which he was entitled to reward rather than to punishment; and concluded by leaving his case to the jury with the fullest confidence that, by the verdict which they were to pronounce, he should go out of Court as he had come into it.
Mr. Scarlett, after the unfounded accusations which had been put forth by Mr. Campbell against his client, claimed the right of reply, although witnesses had not been called for the defence.
The Lord Chief Justice denied the right of Mr. Scarlett to reply, and left the case to the jury, stating it to be his opinion that the libel in question was defamatory of the character of Captain Mills, and intended to injure and to vilify him.
The Jury, after consulting for a few moments, found the defendant — Not guilty.
London Courier and Evening Gazette, 8 July 1830
MARLBOROUGH STREET, —Lieutenant William Burt, R. N., was brought before Sir G. Farrant, the sitting Magistrate, in custody of one of the constables of the New Police, charged with violently assaulting Captain Mills, an officer in the army, under the following circumstances:—
Captain Mills, being sworn, stated that for some days past, in consequence of information given to him that certain persons, one of whom was the defendant, were frequently seen about the neighbourhood of his residence in Down-street, Piccadilly, apparently on the watch for some one, he had reason to believe, from circumstances which had already occurred, that he was the object of their vigilance, and that their design was to commit an assault upon him; but it so happened, that until that day he did not chance to come in contact with them. On that morning, however, just as he had got out of Down-street into Piccadilly, in his tilbury, he was met by the defendant and some others, and the defendant coming up close to the tilbury, shook a horse-whip over his (Captain Mills’s) shoulders, and told him to consider himself as having been horsewhipped. Had the defendant, Captain Mills said, ended here, and left the horsewhipping to the imagination only, he (Captain Mills) knowing the person he had to deal with, would have thought no more of the matter; but the defendant proceeded next to realise the infliction, and actually belaboured him (Captain Mills) with the whip with all the violence he could for some time, before he (the Captain) could get out of the vehicle to make resistance. When, however, he did get out, he retaliated pretty smartly on the defendant, and next gave him in charge to a police constable, who came up during the rencontre, and had him at once conveyed to this office.
When called upon to answer the charge, the defendant, so far was he from denying it, seemed to triumph in the exploit he had performed, and several times reminded Captain Mills, in no very courteous terms, that he had been horsewhipped by him.
Captain Mills said, that it was impossible for any man to guard against being assaulted in a similar manner by any description of persons, however disreputable, who might think proper to watch for and waylay him in the street; but the only way to deal with such persons was to hand them over to the punishment of the law. As for treating the defendant in any other manner, or calling on him for that satisfaction which one gentleman might demand from another, it was quite out of the question, because, although Mr. Burt bore his Majesty’s commission, he had been expelled from the United Service Club, as an unfit person to belong to it.
Mr. Burt said, that he considered himself fully respectable, at least in every sense of the term, as Captain Mills, although he could not boast of having so much notoriety in Bow-street police-reports as the Captain had.
This recriminatory dialogue appeared likely to proceed much father, had not the Magistrate put a sudden stop to it, by ordering the defendant to put in bail to meet the charge at the Sessions, himself in £100 and two sureties of £50 each.
Mr. Burt, a solicitor, a brother to the defendant, and another gentleman, entered into the required sureties and Lieutenant Burt was discharged.
Leave a Reply