16 Commercial Quay
The Old Commercial Quay is shown above on the left of the picture next to the
"Mariner's Arms". Beyond the
three-storey house are seen premises, in the course of demolition,
which were formerly another licensed house, the London Packet. After
three private houses came the large but forbidding-looking Pentside
Baptist Church, later used by the Mission to Seamen. The properties
shown above were demolished in 1930 for improvement of the quays.
IT'S amazing what some people find when taking down
old wallpaper, tidying Cupboards, renewing the glass in a picture frame
or clearing out the attic This picture of the Old Commercial Quay,
facing Wellington Dock, and dating back to the 1860's is just one example of such a find. The picture is embossed with the name of the
former Bench Street photographer J. G. Whorwell but is evidently a copy
of the original because he simply wasn't in business as early as the
Sharp's Commercial Quay public house, on the right of the
picture helps to date the picture as being from about 1861. Richard
Sharp was an innkeeper at Commercial Quay in that year. Sandwiched
between two and three-storey properties on the left is the single-storey
workshop of a ropemaker and dealer in marine stores by the name of
Dennis. The three-storey Dutch-style building towards the centre of the
picture, similar in appearance to Dover's
public library, was evidently very old.
This outlet of Leney faced the dock side and possessed a 61 year lease
from Dover Harbour Board which had commenced in April 1867. £400 was spent
on improvements in 1893 but nevertheless the licence changed hands eighteen
times in twenty years up to 1906 so the closure that year would not have
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
31 May, 1867.
John Smith Norris, the landlord of the "Commercial Quay" public
house, charged with infringing his license, was dismissed on paying the
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
29 July, 1870. Price 1d.
INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE
John Smith Norris, landlord of the "Commercial Quay," was charged
with having his house open at an illegal hour on Monday morning, the
Police-sergeant Barton said he visited the house of the defendant at
ten minutes past twelve on Monday, the 18th inst. He saw there in the
front room, near the bar, three men belonging to the town and there were
upon the table a quart jug and three glasses containing beer. In the
passage he saw a soldier, close to the bar door, and on the bar door was
a glass of ale, just drawn. In the bar parlour he saw another man
belonging to the town. The landlord was present, and in reply to his
remarks, said he was not aware that he was not allowed to remain open at
twelve o'clock on Sunday night.
Police-constable Nash corroborated Barton's evidence.
The defendant said the men found in his house were about to commence
work, in lightening a ship loaded with seed for the Oil Mills, which was
detained here on demurrage, and he thought he was justified, under the
circumstances, in supplying them with a little refreshment. The soldier
had nothing to drink. The beer upon the bar door was drawn for the
captain of the collier, who was lodging in the house. He called a man
named Clark, foreman of labourers, in the employ of Mr. Latham, who
spoke to these three men referred to being employed in the way stated.
It appeared that the defendant had been previously convicted of the
same kind of offence; but the Bench, taking a lenient view of the
circumstances, fined him only 5s. and the costs 10s. 6d., which he paid.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 November, 1873.
George William Pettit applied for permission to sell at the “Old
Commercial Quay,” but as it was elicited that the outgoing tenant was
dead, and the administration of his affairs had not yet taken place the
application was ordered to stand over.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 January, 1877. Price 1d.
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST AN OFFICER’S SERGEANT
William Cox, officers groom, of the 10th Regiment, was charged with
stealing from the person of the complainant, on the 23rd inst., at the
“Old Commercial Quay Inn,” a purse containing one £5 Bank of England
note, £15 in gold, two ten franc pieces, and a one franc piece.
John Kittell, proprietor of the “Gun Hotel,” said: On Tuesday evening I
went to the “Old Commercial Quay Inn,” about 9 o’clock. I had a small
leather purse with me containing a £5 note, £14 10s. in gold, two gold
ten-franc pieces, one franc, and some silver. I called for a glass of
gin and water and went into the private room. I showed my purse to the
landlord and told her I had found it again as I had lost it on a
previous occasion. I sat down in an armchair and fell asleep. There was
no one in the room then. I slept about twenty minutes and when I awoke I
felt in my waistcoat pocket and found my purse was gone. I did not
notice anyone in the room then. I informed the landlady that I had lost
my purse, and the next day I gave information to the Police.
By the Bench: The bar is close to the room where I was. The landlady
could see into the room.
By the prisoner: I did not see you in the house on this occasion but I
have on other occasions.
Hendy Cox said: My daughter keeps the “Grand Shaft Inn,” Snargate
Street. I was left in charge of the house on Wednesday. The prisoner
came that day some time in the afternoon, and called for a pot of ale. I
served him and he laid down apiece of gold which I thought at first was
a half-sovereign. I thought it felt rather light and I showed it to my
wife and she said it was a ten-franc piece. I said to the prisoner “I
say Bill, this is not a half-sovereign it’s a ten-franc piece.” He said
“Well, I know it is, give me change for it.” I said “I can’t because I
don’t know the value of it.” I gave it to my mistress to take to Mr.
Drincqubier’s to change. She changed it and the prisoner then paid me
for the ale.
Matha Bliss said: My husband keeps the “Perseverence Inn,” Snargate
Street. The prisoner came to our house twice yesterday; the first time
he asked for half-a-pint of whiskey. I served him and he paid me for it
with a sovereign. He had other things besides the whiskey and treated
some others who were in the bar. The second time he came it was about
half-past two. He had a bottle of ginger-beer and a glass of brandy. Mt
husband served him and he came to me for change. She gave me a gold
piece which the prisoner had given her. It was a foreign piece of money
and I did not know the value of it so I sent it to Mr. Drincqubier to be
changed. The barmaid brought back 7s 9d. in change for it. The prisoner
paid for what he had had and I gave him the change.
Charles Kittell, son of the prosecutor said: On Wednesday afternoon
Police-constable Suters came to the hotel to see my father. When he came
down the prisoner was in the bar. A conversation took place about the
purse which my father had lost. Prisoner said he thought it was a very
mysterious thing; there was nobody but himself in the room, and he
stopped there about five minutes reading the paper while Mr. Kittell was
asleep. I know my father had his purse in his pocket on Tuesday when he
Mr. Kittel said he could swear to one of the ten-franc pieces as it was
an old republic and he had take particular notice of it.
Police-constable Suters said: On Wednesday afternoon, under the direct of
the Superintendent, I went to the “Gun Hotel.” I saw the prisoner in the
bar and young Kittell. The conversation was about the loss of Mr.
Kittell’s purse. Prisoner said “It seems a very mysterious affair to me;
I can’t make it out, for I went into the room where he was sitting. I
took up the paper and read. There was no one there when I was in the
room with him, and I saw no one touch his purse nor him.” He said Mr.
Kittell was asleep in the room.
Ernest Drincqubier said Mrs. Cox, from the “Grand Shaft Inn,” came into
his house and asked him to change a ten-franc piece of Wednesday. He
noticed the coin was black and rung it and found it all right. Having
been previously warned by Police-constable Suters that there were some
ten-franc pieces missing he put it on one side after he had given the
change. He produced the coin, which was an old Republic of 1851. The
same afternoon a young person came in and changed another ten-franc
piece, that he put in the till.
Mrs. Cox and Margaret Tutt, the barmaid at the “Perseverance Inn,”
deposed to changing the ten-franc pieces at Mr. Drincqubier’s.
Mr. Kittell identified the franc pieces produced as one of those which
he had lost with his purse.
Police-constable Baker said his attention was called to the prisoner in
Biggin Street by Mr. Kittell, jun., who gave him into custody. He told
him he was charged with stealing money from the person of Mr. Kittell.
He said he must go to the barracks before he went anywhere else. He then
took him to the Police-station where he became violent and he had to get
the assistance of two men. When the charge was made out to him he said
“That’s all right. I know I was there.” The Constable searched him and
found £6 10s. in gold with some tobacco in a pouch, 17s. in silver, and
2½d. loose in his trousers pocket, and other articles.
The case was remanded till tomorrow (Saturday) for the attention of the
landlady of the “Old Commercial Quay Inn.”
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2 February, 1877. Price 1d.
ALLEGED THEFT BY AN OFFICER’S SERGEANT
William Cox, officer’s groom, was charged on remand with stealing a
purse containing moneys from the person of Mr. Kittell, proprietor of
the “Gun Hotel.”
The evidence taken on Friday was read and the following additional
evidence was taken:-
Fanny Lonan said: My husband keeps the “Old Commercial Quay Inn.” Mr.
Kittell came into my house on Friday night between eight and nine. He
came to the bar and I served him with a glass of gin. He did not pay for
it then. I did not see Mr. Kittell take out his purse. I knew that he
had previously lost his purse. He drank some of the gin and then went in
the room. He there fell into the fire grate and two gentlemen picked him
up. He then sat down in the easy chair and went to sleep about twenty
minutes. There is a passage between the bar and the room where he was,
and while he was there several gentlemen looked in but I did not see
anyone go in. When he woke up he came to the bar and said, “Mrs. Lunon,
give me my purse.” I said, “Kittell, I am astonished, I’ve not got your
purse.” He then said the third time I had it, and stamped his foot
violently. He said he had given it to me to mind. I sent to his home and
a man named Landell came and took him away. The prisoner frequently
visited my house. He was there on Tuesday afternoon some time before
five but whether he was there in the evening or no I cannot say. I was
in the bar the whole of the evening. I was busy and might not have seen
anyone who went into the room where Mt. Kittell was. The prisoner was at
my house on the Monday and borrowed half-a-crown. He said that he was
short of money and that he expected some from his home in the morning
and would pay me. On Tuesday morning, about nine o’clock, he brought me
the half-a-crown back.
By the Bench: It was a half-a-crown piece he gave me. I do not think
anyone could go into the room without seeing him. I only allow people to
go into the room that I know. The strangers (the two gentlemen referred
to previously) had been in the house about twenty minutes. They said
when he was picked up, “Hasn’t he cop’t the brewer?” he was helpless
when he fell into the grate. He did not say anything about the purse
when he came in. he said when he came in in the morning that he had
found his purse. He did not leave it with me as he said he had.
My Mr. Vidler: There were about twenty people in the bar at the time he
came in. A man that was sent from Mr. Kittell’s house and a young man
from my house assisted him home.
By the Bench: He repeatedly said that I had got his purse and that he
gave it me to take charge of. He did not make ant illusion to the
The Prisoner: How long was I in the other room when I came out of the
back room when you told me Mr. Kittell was drunk?
Witness: I don’t remember seeing you that night.
Prisoner: Did I tell you that I would pay you the half-a-crown when I
had got some money from home or after I had been to barracks?
Witness: You said you would pay me after you had got some from home.
The officer to whom prisoner acted as groom said the prisoner would not
be in possession of a considerable sum of money on being in his service;
he settled his own accounts himself.
The prisoner pleaded “not guilty” to the charge. He said: I found £12 on
Wednesday afternoon in the closet of Mrs. Lunon’s public-house, rolled
it in a piece of brown paper tied up by a piece of string. When I opened
it I think there were nine sovereigns beside some silver. I did not see
a purse of any description there or the note spoken of. I should like to
call a witness who is in the court.
Harry browning was called. He said: I am a coachman in the employ of a
gentleman visiting Dover. I was in the “Old Commercial Quay Inn” on
Tuesday evening, standing just in the bar, when Mr. Kittell came in. I
did not see Mr. Kittell with a purse in his possession. He called for
some drink and went into the room before referred to. In about twenty
minutes he came out of the room and went down the passage towards the
back door. In about ten minutes he returned again and came to the front
bar and asked Mrs. Lunon for his purse. She told him she had not got it,
and he said “I gave it you to mind.” A man named Landell came and took
him home. I do not remember seeing prisoner in that room during the day.
I have seen him in the house before. The front of the bar was full on
By the Bench: I was in the bar all the time. I saw the two strangers in
the bar and saw them pick the defendant up. I cannot say how long they
stayed after. I do not know where Mr. Kittell went. There was so many in
the bar that I could not see who went in or who came out.
The bench committed the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 February, 1891. Price 1d.
BREAKING A PUBLIC HOUSE WINDOW
Thomas Friend was charged with being drunk and breaking a pane of glass
value 2s.6d. at the “Old Commercial Quay Inn.”
The Magistrates fined prisoner 10s. and 7s. cost and damage 2s. 6d., but
in default he went to prison for 14 days.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 30 August, 1901. Price 1d.
ANNUAL LICENSING DAY
Mr. Dolbear, the present landlord, then made formal application for the
renewal of the licence of the “Old Commercial Quay Inn.”
Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to support the renewal of this
licence. He understood that there was to be a double objection, from the
Superintendent of the Police, and also from the Temperance Party,
represented by Mr. Montague Bradley.
Mr. Bradley said he was instructed on behalf of the Dover temperance
Council to oppose the “Old Commercial Quay Inn.” The grounds as stated
in the notices, were that in December last the then tenant was convicted
of opening the premises during prohibited hours, and fined £10 and
costs, and the Magistrates ordered the licence to be endorsed. Another
ground of objection was the record of the house, from which it would
appear that on two previous occasions the licence had been endorsed; and
the further ground was that the licence was not required, as it was
situated in a neighbourhood which, it had often admitted, was over
supplied with public houses. These were the three grounds, and he had no
doubt that Mr. Mowll, when making his reply, would argue that those whom
he represented were mere fanatics and wished to remove the whole of the
licenses at one blow. They had heard that old story often before, but it
was an entire miss-statement, for they came there for one specific
licence, and he thought that when they heard the facts the Bench would
be amply justified in declining to renew the licence of this house, and
consider those who instructed him were taking a very moderate course in
opposing this licence only. Dealing with the grounds of objection, he
pointed out that the conviction was regarded by the Bench as a very
serious one that required a considerable penalty, as they imposed a fine
of £10 and endorsed the licence. The Magistrates clearly had it in mind
that the licence ought to be brought before them for consideration as to
its renewal or not. Frequently when opposition was based on a
conviction, those applying were able to point to the previous record of
the house and say that it was very hard lines because of one slip the
licence should be taken away. There was not that opportunity in this
case, because it was to be seen by the register which would be put in
that the licence had been endorsed twice, and one conviction had not
been endorsed. He was aware that some time had elapsed, but that was the
character of the house. In dealing with the third ground, which was an
important one, that it was not required, he would only refer them to the
position of the house. It was on the Commercial Quay, and of seventeen
consecutive houses, of which this was one, seven were licensed houses.
The bench had expressed its desire to reduce them, and the Temperance
Council opposed this licence in order to assist the bench in coming to a
decision as to which house should be refused renewal. He was glad to
find that he did not stand alone in his opposition, and that the Police
were also opposing it. Whatever jest Mr. Mowll might treat them with, he
felt that he would not be able to treat the opposition of the Police in
any light manner at all.
Evidence of the service of the notice was given by Mr. F. W.
Bartholomew, Mr. Bradley’s Clerk.
Mr. E. Chitty said that he signed the notice of objection. There were,
he said, about five licensed houses within a hundred yards, and ten
within two hundred yards, all in a line. In seventeen consecutive houses
in Commercial Quay, of which this house was one, seven of them were
licensed. He considered that far in excess of the requirements of the
In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said that he should not like to say that
his only knowledge of the conduct of the house was from the register of
convictions. From common report he knew it was a house with a rough
character. He did not object to the house last year, as the conviction
had not then taken place. That was the principle, but not the only
reason he objected to the renewal. If it had not been for that
conviction, he should not be there to object to the house, although he
should object to the house. This was not the only house he would like to
see done away with, for he thought there were far too many in the town.
He was not prepared to say that he would take away these licenses
without compensating the brewer or tenant. He did not feel inclined to
go into the question.
You are owner of a good many houses doing a trade. - not in this line?
You are quite right; I am part owner.
You are owners of a large number of baker’s shops, are you not?
Would these bakers be tied to you in the same was as a tenant is tied to
Mr. Bradley objected to the question. They were not objecting to the
house because it was a tied house.
Mr. Mowll said that Mr. Bradley had put his objection in a most
unanswerable manner. He had put his question, and Mr. Chitty had not
answered. They might guess what the answer would be.
Mr. Bradley said that was his case.
Superintendent H. N. Knott produced notice of objection served by the
Police on the tenant, and also the register of licenses, showing the
In reply to Mr. Bradley, the Superintendent said he considered the
number of houses very excessive in this particular locality. In a
distance of 279 yards from the “Apollonian” to the “George Hotel,” there
were twenty-five dwelling houses, seven stores, one chapel, and ten
licensed houses. The character of the house was rough when tenanted by
Cool, Faggater, and Colbreay, but it was well conducted by Maslin and
the present tenant.
By the Magistrates’ Clerk. When conducted by H. G. Maslin his four
years’ tenancy it was well conducted, and it was now well conducted by
Dolbear. Colbrey was only in a short time.
By Mr. Mowll: Faggater was in from May, 1885, to November, 1895, and
during that time there was only one conviction against him, and there
was nothing against the house to justify taking out a summons. Faggater
left in 1895, and in May, 1896, the house was occupied by Maslin, and he
remained there until 1900. During those four years the house was very
well conducted. Dolbear had been in the house since January of this
year, and was a man of high character. He had held various licensed
houses, and had conducted them well, and never been convicted nor
cautioned by the Police, so far as witness could remember. He had
occupied the “Mechanics Arms” on the Quay seven years, and the “Barley
Mow” six years.
Supposing Superintendent, you had got to select a tenant for the “Old
Commercial Quay,” can you name a single person who would be more
suitable to be a tenant than James Dolbear?
Mr. Mowll called Mr. F. G. Hayward, who stated that in 1893 alterations
costing £400, which made the house more suitable, had been carried out.
By Mr. Bradley: He thought the alterations would improve the character
of the house. He knew there was a conviction two years afterwards, but
not in consequence of the alterations. Since the alterations he was
aware the licence had been endorsed twice.
The Chairman remarked that the alterations were apparently to improve
the sanitary arrangements.
Mr. Howard said that was so.
Mr. R. Mowll, in asking the Bench to renew the licence, said he had
evidence of the excellent manner in which the house had been conducted,
with the exceptions that had been mentioned; but having regard to the
high character that the Superintendent of Police had given to the
conduct of the house by the present tenant and Maslin, he thought it
unnecessary to trouble the Bench. Mr. Bradley in opening his attack on
the house seemed to imagine that he was going to treat his opposition
with jest. That was the very last feeling he had, because it was his
client’s property that was going to be taken away. He left it to others,
like Mr. Chitty, who asked the Bench to take away the property which did
not belong to them, the opportunity of passing any jest. The first
ground on which they were asked to take away the licence was that the
house was badly conducted. He thought that in considerating that point,
a great deal of ancient history had been gone into. They were probably
aware that in certain circumstances a licence was forfeited. If a
licence were endorsed twice within a certain period that licence was
forfeited. The 32nd section, however, provided a five years’ limit,
after which no evidence of a previous conviction should be receivable of
the purpose of increasing the penalty or forfeiture. It was not
therefore fair to call up against a man something which had happened
over five years ago. Here they were not dealing with a man previously
convicted, but they were asked to receive a conviction recorded against
someone else, and which occurred a very long time ago. He made not
technical objection, but pointed it out as an anomaly which the Bench
should bear in mind in considering the merits of the case. Accepting the
guidance given by the legislation, they had to deal with the conviction
which took place in the past year. Mr. Chitty admitted that it was that
conviction that brought him there. It was his lot to defend the tenant,
and it was decided that the supper party which was alleged was not
properly substantiated, and the Bench did inflict a severe penalty on
the man. But the fact of punishing the man at the time did not alter the
fact that three months previously, when applying for the licence, he had
a character of 26 years faithful service in employ of the L.C.D.
Railway. The character given him by Captain Morgan was as high a
character as it had ever been his lot to see. Mr. Leney could therefore
be hardly blamed for the fact that a man with such a high character
proved subsequently to be an unsatisfactory tenant. The offence of being
open during prohibited hours was very reprehensible, but was only a
breach of discipline, and not a very serious offence. It was not a case
where the house was being used by persons of an unsatisfactory
character, and the previous convictions were of a similar character. He
also referred to the excellent character the tenant bore, and the fact
that Messrs. Leney were most particular as to the character of their
tenant. The second ground on which they were asked to take away the
licence was that it was not required. That had been before them on many
occasions, and he referred them to an appeal to His Honour Judge Selfe,
who said that the question whether a living was to be made in the house
was not a matter which should be taken into account, but a commercial
question for the consideration of those interested. In 1898 the “George”
and “New Commercial Quay” licences were renewed, where both of the
houses had been convicted of the offence to which he had alluded. If the
licence of a house convicted of the most serious offence known to the
licensing laws were renewed ought they not to renew the licence of a
house convicted of a breach of discipline? As to the objection on the
ground that the licence was not required, it had been said again and
again that they could not take away a licence on that ground. How could
it be said a licence was not required when the owner thought it valuable
enough to spend £400 on it. How could it be said that it was not
required when there was the immense shipping trade and the immense
number of people who passed by, and the licences were renewed year after
year and did a considerable trade? If they were not going to take away
the licence on that ground, they were asked to take it away on the
ground that the tenant had been convicted. Just picture Mr. Chitty
coming before them and saying “I have got a house in this town - a
baker’s shop, - the tenant has been convicted of selling bread unweighed,
and therefore I ask you to take away my property.” (Laughter). If the
Bench could imagine Mr. Chitty applying these principles to his own
property, he could not. (Laughter). In conclusion, he asked the Bench to
renew the licence, which was held by a man of the highest character, and
owned by a brewer who would take every possible care that the house in
the future should be well conducted.
The Magistrates then adjourned for luncheon, and on the Court
re-assembling, the Chairman said: The licence for the “Old Commercial
Quay Inn” will be renewed.
DOVER EXPRESS first week OCTOBER 1906 reported the following:- Canterbury
Sessions decided to close, under the Compensation Act, six Dover pubs
including the "William and Albert", "Three
Compasses", "Duke of York", The "Wellesley",
The "Old Commercial Quay" and the "Half Moon".
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.
OBJECTION TO OLD COMMERCIAL QUAY
In this case the tenant, James Gilbert, was unable to attend, and a
certificate from Dr. Howden stated that he was recovering from
pneumonia, was put in. Mr. Knocker appeared on behalf of the owners,
Messrs. Leney and Co. the grounds of the notice were that the license
were unnecessary, and that the house had been ill-conducted.
Inspector Fox stated that the license had been transferred to James
Gilbert on the 6th October 1905. there had been seven tenants in the
last 10½ years, and about 18 changes in the last 20 years. There were
five other licensed premises within the immediate vicinity, the furthest
being 76 yards away. There had been convictions against the premises in
1879, 1881, 1885, and 1895.
The Chairman said that in regard to previous convictions, it would be
better not to press them unless the premises were being conducted in an
improper way at the present time.
Mr. Knocker said there had been no conviction within the last six years.
The Chairman said that ground of objection would be withdrawn from the
Mr. Knocker said that under those circumstances he did not propose to
address the Magistrates, or to make any objection to the notice.
THE MAGISTRATES DECISION
After a short consultation in private, the Magistrates turned to the
Bench. The Chairman said “The following houses will be referred to the
Kent Compensation Committee of the Quarter Sessions in due form: The
“William and Albert,” The “Three Compasses,” the “Wellesley Inn,” the
“Old Commercial Quay,” the “Duke of York,” and the “Half Moon.” The
licenses for these houses will run until the time when the compensation
is paid, and then the licences will cease. With respect to the
“Devonshire Arms” and the “Lord Roberts,” and the “Nottingham Castle,”
they will be withdrawn from the list.- These licences will be renewed in
the ordinary way.
Compensation was agreed in October that year and Leney received £850 and
the tenant £70. It continued as a private dwelling.
JACKSON W 1832
BARTON John S 1847 (Commercial Quay Inn)
TAYLOR William 1852 (Commercial Quay Inn)
TAYLOR Matilda1854 (Commercial Quay Inn)
SHARP to Mar/1861
MARKS Mr W Mar/1861+
NORRIS John Smith 1867-70+
PETTET George William 1874
DYASON Mr dec'd Jan/1874
DYASON Mrs J Jan/1874 end
INSKIP William 1875
JOHNSON John 1875
KITTELL John William 1877
LONAN Charles 1877
McKAY Daniel to May/1878
McIVER Kennett May/1878
MURGATROYD Edward 1879
MACKAY John 1881-82
COLE George 1883-85 end
FAGGETTER Lewis 1885-96
MASLEN Henry P 1896-July/1900
COLBREAY George Horace July/1900+
DOLBEAR James 1900
COCHRANE William 1900 end (Commercial Quay Inn)
CARLEY Henry 1902 end
JONES 1902-5 end
JONES W 1902-05 end
GILBERT John 1905-06 end
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Dover Express