MILLS, Charles (1755-1826), of 12 Mansfield Streetand, Marylebone, Mdx. and Barford, Warws.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 13 July 1755, 2nd s. of Rev. John Mills, rector of Barford and Oxhill, Warws. by Sarah, da. of Rev. William Wheler, vicar of Leamington Hastings, Warws.; bro. of William Mills*. educ. Rugby 1763. m. 21 Mar. 1810, his sis.-in-law Jane, da. of Hon. Wriothesley Digby of Meriden, Warws., s.p.
Dir. E.I. Co. 1785-1815, dep. chairman 1801, chairman Sept. 1801-2, dir. London Dock Co. 1803-9; asst. Lead Co. 1805.
Lt.-col. 1 R.E.I. vols. 1796, col. 1803; capt. Marylebone vols. 1803; commr. of lieutenancy, London 1808-d.
Mills’s grandfather was a clerk in Chancery. His uncle William Mills, who married the heiress of Sir John Salter, Lord Mayor of London and an East India proprietor, saved the bank of Glyn and Hallifax in the panic of 1772 with £10,000, stipulating that he become a partner with his nephew Charles (who duly became one on coming of age). In 1785, on the retirement of his elder brother William, Charles also became an East India Company director. According to the historian of Glyn Mills Bank, his connexions in the business world and the Mills funds were great assets to the bank in its steady recovery. His nephews, who inherited his wealth, continued the family association with the bank.1
Mills, who had strong local connexions, was triumphant on the independent interest at Warwick in 1802, driving his London neighbour, Samuel Robert Gaussen*, from the field and attributing his successful canvass to the efforts of the veteran Whig Dr Samuel Parr of Hatton.2 He held the seat unopposed until his death, though he was not conspicuous for political commitment and made little mark in the House. He is not known to have opposed the Addington ministry, but voted against Pitt’s additional force bill in June 1804. In September he was listed at first both ‘Addington’ and ‘Pitt’, then among ‘Addington’s friends on whom some impression might be made’ and, finally, ‘doubtful Addington’. He was again so listed in July 1805, after he had joined the majorities on Melville’s case, 8 Apr. and 12 June. He supported the Grenville ministry’s repeal of Pitt’s Additional Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806, having on 21 Apr. been in the minority on East Indian affairs. He obtained leave of absence 19 Mar.-3 Apr. 1807, and his next known vote was on 11 Feb. 1808, when he supported inquiry into the application of the droits of Admiralty. He was in the minority against the convention of Cintra, 21 Feb. 1809, as also against Perceval’s motion on the Duke of York’s conduct, 17 Mar. He opposed the address, 23 Jan. 1810, and voted against ministers on the Scheldt question, 26 Jan., 23 Feb., 5 Mar., being absent on 30 Mar. on his honeymoon, despite Whig attempts to entice him back.3 On the strength of this, the Whigs listed him with his brother William among their adherents; in fact, William attended more often than Charles. It is not clear which of them Bankes proposed for the finance committee, 31 Jan. 1810. Although both William and Charles were at first reported in the majority against parliamentary reform, 21 May, a correction asserted that Charles was absent. He was ranged with the opposition on the Regency, 1, 21 Jan. 1811, and for the abolition of McMahon’s paymastership, 24 Feb. 1812. After the election of 1812, when the Treasury marked him ‘con’, George Rose commented, ‘I think he should be only d[oubtful]. He is by no means so decided as his brother Wm