Sort file:- Dover, July, 2021.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 31 July, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1869


Latest 1916

29 London Road


Crown, London Road 1904

The Crown Inn, London Road, in 1904. It was between Churchill Street and Beaconsfield Road, with Attwood's the outfitters next door.

Crown today is O'Brien

Today 2006 29 London Road is occupied by G O'Brien (Butchers)

Former Crown 2010

Above photo by Paul Skelton, 9 April 2010, showing the Crown as the building in the centre of the picture.


A beerhouse of Leney, originating previous to 1869. An interesting change was contemplated by the Phoenix Brewery in 1914. Their desire being to close this and transfer the licence to a property in Pretoria Terrace which stood at its juncture with Whitfield Avenue. (Now known as Brookfield Avenue). The Bench do not seem to have been sufficiently impressed by the evidence to merit its justification and would not co-operate.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 6 September, 1872. Price 1d.


In the case of the “Crown,” Charlton, the license of which was formerly held by Mr. James Friend, it was now taken out by Mr. Joseph Prebble, one of Mr. Friend's executors.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 4 March, 1914. Price 1d.


On Monday the decision of the Licensing Committee, who sat in February last, came up for the approval of the Magistrates, Mr. J. L. Bradley (in the chair), Capt. R. B. cay, R.N., Dr. C. Wood, and Messrs. F. W. Prescott, W. Bradley, F. Wright, M. Pepper, H. F. Edewin, J. W. Bussey, G. C. Rubin, J. D. Atkins, W. J. Palmer, H. Hobday, W. J. Barnes, J. Scott, A. Clark, and T. A. Terson.


Mr. R. Mowll applied on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., for the confirmation of the removal of the existing licence of the “Crown Inn,” London Road, to premises at the corner of Whitfield and Buckland Avenue. He said that the removal was unanimously agreed to by the Licensing Committee, who were fully represented at the time with the exception, they regretted, of the present Chairman, whose ill health, he supposed, did not permit him attending.

Mr. Bradley: I should not have been of any avail if I had.

Mr. Mowll, after explaining the application, said that the practice of the Court – although of course it did not bind the Magistrates that day – had invariably been for many years past for the confirming authority to accept the decision of the Licensing Committee. The Magistrates of course had a perfect right to question, and could also over-rule, the decision of the Licensing Committee, who they themselves appointed. At the previous application Mr. E. E. Chitty, representing the Dover Temperance Council, the Rev. W. W. Goldstraw, and Mr. Vallintine, explained the case at considerable length, and was present again today to oppose the confirmation. Mr. Mowll pointed out that the proposal was not to increase the number of licensed houses in the town, but simply to remove an existing beer on and off licence from one site to another. The site was in the new neighbourhood where there were no other licensed houses for a considerable distance, and he asked that the Licensing Committee's decision should be confirmed upon the grounds that the people in the neighbourhood should be afforded reasonable facilities. He knew that some Magistrates held very conscientiously the views that licensed houses were not desirable, but of course that must not prevail with the Bench. That was not the true test to be applied. The true test was as to whether the neighbourhood was adequately furnished with licensed premises. There was evidence before the Licensing Committee that 260 houses were already built and another 80 were about to be constructed, which made a total of 340. the usual method of calculating a population in the area was five people to a house, so that would give them a population of something like 1,700. The majority report of the Royal Commission on Licensing recommended a licence for every 400 people, so it would seem that this was a very strong case. There was not a single resident in the district who was sufficiently hostile to the application either to come forward as a witness or to undertake the cost of opposing. The opposition entirely proceeded from his old friends the teetotallers, and he was bound to say that in these matters sometimes the object of these people seemed to be rather to prevent than to furnish the reasonable facilities to which the public were entitled. His friend Mr. Chitty, very ingeniously tried to get over the difficulty of there not being anyone in the district sufficiently hostile ton oppose by giving evidence, by getting up a petition. He calculated that of 260 houses, 145 had been visited, and 88 householders and 15 wives signed so that the petition did not carry much weight. In the course of his argument Mr. Chitty was driven to some desperate reasons for asking the Licensing Committee to refuse the application; one reason being that Mr. Buss had been refused. It was very good of Mr. Chitty to take Mr. Buss under his wing, but Mr. Buss's application was on an entirely different ground inasmuch as it was applying for a new licence. His friend next resorted to the most ingenious argument he had ever heard on behalf of the temperance advocates. Mr. Chitty took under his protection the customers of the “Crown.” His soul was filled with indignation that the people who now use the “Crown” should not have the opportunity of continuing to frequent that house. Then again Mr. Chitty said that they ought to have applied for a new licence. The net result of that, if they succeeded, would be that they would not only have the “Crown” licence, but the new licence as well, thus increasing the number of licences in the town. His friend also said something about monopoly value. Monopoly value it was true was probably not payable under the removal, but then on the other hand they got no compensation for the closing of the “Crown,” so that it was as broad as it was long. He asked the Bench to follow the course adopted by their predecessors and confirm the removal.

Mr. E. E. Chitty said that he appeared to oppose on behalf of the Rev. W. W. Goldstraw, Mr. W. T. Vallintine, and members of the Dover temperance Council. Mr. Mowll had told them quite correctly that it had been almost the custom for licences granted by the Licensing Committee to be confirmed by the confirming authority, but it did not follow that everything customary in Dover in the past had been beneficial. He thought that this particular kind of application was very different from many that had come before the Bench. He suggested that there was a strong and serious objection to the application, both on the merits of the application itself and on the general principles. In reply to the argument that not a single person had appeared to oppose from the neighbourhood, he pointed out that not a single person had asked for the removal of the licence. The only people present who wished for it were the brewers, who already owned two of the nearest licences, one within 200 yards. A very large number of people had shown themselves opposed to it. He could quite agree with the information of his friend as regards the petition. The number of houses visited was 145 and eliminated the wives there were 121 people seen, of whom 91 actually signed the petition.

Mr. Mowll: The difference is only between 91 and 88.

Mr. Chitty said that three to one of those seen signed the petition.

Mr. Mowll: Not three to one of those in the area.

Mr. Chitty: Three to one in the area visited. Continuing, he said that in the matter of principle there was a very strong objection. If the Bench adopted the practice of granting new licences by way of removals they would encourage the brewers to continue in existing houses, which ought to die a natural death, in the hope that they would be able to exchange the licence for a new licence some day without paying monopoly value for it. It was obvious that the house which did not pay was the most dangerous. The house where a man could get a living honestly was the house to be shut up. He did not say that this house was such a house. The Bench were asked to consider the wishes of the neighbourhood. That was the primary point. Mr. Mowll had said that it was the same thing whether they had a monopoly value or the house was compensated under the Act, but he forgot that the monopoly value was paid to the public, and that the taxpayer got the benefit.

Mr. Mowll: Not the ratepayer. It is paid to the Exchequer.

Mr. Chitty said that the Exchequer got the money, but the compensation was paid to the brewers. Another point was that if a new licence was granted the Bench would have a right to attach conditions, but by removing a licence they would be deprived of that right. The whole principle of granting a removal was wrong and encouraged the worst kind of house to remain, and deprived the public of its monopoly value and the Bench of its salutary description to impose conditions. He asked that the Bench should accede to the wishes of the majority of the people in the neighbourhood who asked that the removal be refused.

The Magistrates adjourned to consider the case, and on returning, the Chairman said that the application was refused.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 January, 1905. Price 1d.


Mr. Hatton Brown applied for the transfer of the license of the “Crown” London Road.

It was stated that the license was last transferred in June, and the Magistrates refused transfer as their rule was that there should be nine months between a transfer.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 20 January, 1905. Price 1d.


Mr. Rutley Mowll applied on behalf of Mr. King, for permission to draw at the “Crown Inn.” An application was made to the Magistrates the other day, and the circumstances were not quite explained to them in respect to this house. Mr. Arter, the outgoing tenant, had been in the house about seven months, which was less than the prescribed period, a rule having been made that nine months should expire between transfers. That rule as they knew, was liable to be dispensed with on special occasions, and he asked them to grant the permission, notwithstanding nine months had not expired. In fact, he would not have been there, but for an unfortunate oversight, which occurred in this way. Perhaps they knew each Bench had its own time for this rule, in some cases twelve months, in others nine or six months. Six months having expired, by some confusion the application was put forward after six months but within the nine months. The change had really taken place, and he was in a rather awkward fix, the house being shut up, and he asked them to relieve him from that difficulty and to grant Mr. King, whom he could prove was a respectable man, permission to draw at the house. He produced testimonials from Mr. Councillor Austin and from Alderman Adcock as to Mr. King's respectability.

Mr. Pepper: Why does Mr. Arter want to give it up?

Mr. Mowll: He hasn't been sufficiently successful.

Mr. Pepper: He sold good sausages there if not beer.

Mr. Mowll: Very good beer and sausages as well. They went together. (Laughter).

The Magistrates granted the application.



The "Crown" itself finally bowed to the Licensing (Consolidation) Act of 1910, closing on 30 December 1916. Compensation, at 663, was agreed in November that year but I have no details how it was divided. The tenant was George Parks Wood, if not then, later, the secretary to Alfred Leney and Company.



ASHDOWN Thomas 1870

FRIEND James to Sept/1872 dec'd Dover Express

PREBBLE Joseph 1872 end

FRIEND Sarah Ann to Jan/1900 Dover Express

MILLER William James Jan/1900-May/1904 Kelly's 1903Dover Express (previous a char-a-banc driver)

ARTER Edward James May/1904-Jan/05 Dover Express (Formerly agent for the East Kent Brewery Company.)

KING Frederick William Next pub licensee had Jan/1905-Jan/10 Dover Express

OVENDEN John Lucas Jan/1910-Dec/10 Dover Express (seaman)

BAKER Stephen Edward Dec/1910-11+ (also bricklayer age 59 in 1911Census) Dover Express


Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express


Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903


If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-