Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.



Notes of 1873



From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 January, 1873. Price 1d.


The Court then sat as an adjourned Quarter Session and the subject if the Licensing Committee was introduced by Mr. J. C. Talbot, M.P., who said that he received from Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen a document which bore reference to business transacted by that Court at the last Quarter Sessions. This document was what Mr. Hugessen called a protest and it was signed by a large number of Justices in the Eastern Division of the county who objected to the decision of the Magistrates at the adjourned Sessions held in October, by adjournment from Canterbury and Maidstone in the previous week. This document was worded as follows:- “We the undersigned Magistrates of the County of Kent, resident in the Eastern Division of the said county, hereby protest against the decision arrived at by the Court of Quarter Sessions holden at Maidstone on Tuesday the 22nd October last, by which it was determined by a majority composed almost exclusively of Magistrates resident in the Western Division, that one committee should be appointed for the whole County for the confirmation of licenses under the “Intoxicating Liquors Act, 1872,” instead of following the analogy of the Court of Quarter Sessions and appointing two committees, one for East and one for West Kent. The transaction of general county business at Maidstone only practically prevents many Magistrates resident in the Eastern Division from taking their due share and exercising their fair influence in such business. Any effort to obtain a change in this respect has hitherto been ineffectual; but as the decision above referred to appears to indicate further attempts at centralization, and was arrived at in spite of the wish expressed by the East Kent Magistrates through their chairman, that they should be allowed to manage their own business, we beg to record our dissent from and protest against such decision.” This protest was signed by a large number of Magistrates, and accompanied a letter to himself (Mr. Talbot). He replied that he did not know why the document had been sent to him or in what way it might be supposed to concern him, but he now thought it would be well to lay the matter before the Court of Quarter Sessions, then assembled.

Earl Romney said he had been shown a paper which led him to suppose that it was perfectly easy for any Magistrate in East Kent who wished to attend the Quarter Sessions held at Maidstone to do so without inconvenience to themselves. A train left Deat at 8.25, Canterbury at 9.10, and Ashford at 9.30 or 9.50, which reached Paddock Wood 10.32 and Maidstone at seven minutes after eleven. If a passenger from East Kent could come by such a convenient train as that, he did not see that the distance was a very serious obstruction to any Magistrates who really desired to attend to the business of the County. He really thought the subject a very trifling one, and did not suppose that the Justices who signed the protest which had been read looked upon it in anything like a serious light. A sort of party cry was raised and they put their names to the paper without much consideration. As he had before said the matter was of very small importance, and after all the appointment had only been made for one year and the Court would be perfectly competent at the next Quarter Sessions to reverse the order which they had made, if it was found that it was considered generally desirable. He must say that, although he had been connected with the Justices of the County for many years he had never seen any such feelings as those which had been recently displayed. Mr. Higessen had attributed to the meeting a want of fairness because Mr. Hardy had told him that the Magistrates sitting at Canterbury had put themselves out of court by not taking the steps which they ought to have done. If the Justices sitting at Canterbury had taken the initiative and appointed a committee of their own, as they might have done, the matter so far as concerned themselves would have been settled there and then. But, when the same Sessions were held at Maidstone it was not for the Justices present to decide according to their (the East Kent Magistrates) notions of fairness, but their duty was to agree upon that course which appeared to be most favourable to the interests of the whole County. The best plan appeared to be to have one committee, and it was, therefore, decided upon. He was surprised with Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen talking about fairness – a gentleman of distinction, a justice of the County, a chairman of Quarter Sessions, and one who had held the Office of Secretary of State for the Home Department – he should never have thought that he would have made such a charge as that – it was perfectly absurd. In conclusion his lordship said he felt convinced that by next October Sessions each Magistrate would vote according to the best of his belief in furtherance of the interest of the County, always remembering that the court would be perfectly content to constitute a separate licensing committee if they considered it would be the better plan to do so. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. A. Beattie said that as he voted with Mr. Hugessen he might be considered an impartial speaker (Hear, hear.) He perfectly agreed with Lord Romney in saying that it was unwise to cast any imputation upon the Court, or to attempt to ground any charge or suspicion of unfairness. He deeply regretted that that feeling should have got abroad in any person's mind, especially in that of a man in so an exalted a position as Mr. Hugessen. He hoped what Lord Romney had stated would prove a healing measure, and, that if it were found to be better to have two committees the course would be quite ready to alter its course when a fresh appointment was made at the close of the year.

Sir Walter Stirling: I don't think there is any necessity for the present motion to be rescinded.

Mr. Talbot wished to add one word. It appeared to be overlooked that this Licensing Committee could meet in any place fixed upon. Therefore, if at the time of sitting they should find that the greater number of licences to be considered were in East Kent, they would no doubt decide to sit at Canterbury. If on the contrary, there were more applications from the western division of the county, Maidstone would probably be selected as the place of meeting. Or there was not even the necessity that Maidstone should be decided upon; any other town might be chosen. It was desirable that this should be understood, for it might obviate the unpleasant feelings which appeared to be arising. It would certainly be hard for people in Ramsgate, Margate, Deal, or Dover to have to go all the way to Maidstone to get their licenses confirmed.

Colonel Groves: I think no other place than Maidstone or Canterbury should be decided upon.

Mr. W. Balston: Oh yes. According to the Act of Parliament another town might be chosen.

The subject then dropped.

Mr. W. H. James thought it premature to discuss the subject at that meeting, for the law having now been laid down it was impossible to rescind it then. If at the end of the year it was still thought that two committees would be better than one, he felt sure that every Magistrate would give the subject his most careful consideration and endeavour to do that which appeared to be for the good of the community. He wished the attendance of the Clerk of the Peace to be drawn to the fact that on the agenda paper, prepared for the October General Sessions, there was no notice made of the fact that a licensing committee would be appointed or that the subject would be considered at all. He attributed the non-attendance of a large number of East Kent Magistrates to their not having been informed that such important business was to be transacted.

Earl Romney objected to the tern “East Kent Magistrates.” They were all Justices of the County of Kent. The simple difference was that some happened to live in East Kent and some in West Kent.

Mr. James begged to withdraw the distinction, but there was, notwithstanding, a sort of geographical boundary between them, and while admitting that it was not a matter of “East Kent” and “West Kent,” the Magistrates in the former division thought they had a right to assert their voice.

Lord Sydney apprehended that the Quarter, any Magistrate from West Kent could take part in Sessions held for the whole county. (Hear, hear,) and vote at the Sessions at Canterbury and vice versa. The Sessions were held for the whole county, and only divided for a matter of convenience.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 9 May, 1873. Price 1d.


New licenses were granted to Annie Padgeham, for the "Albert Tea Gardens," St. Peter's.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 May, 1873. Price 1d.


On the application of Mr. Coleman, permission to draw until next transfer day was given as follows:-

The "Rootham Arms," St. Peter's, Mary Ann White.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 6 June, 1873. Price 1d.


An application was made by Mr. G. Page, of Bench Street, for permission to sell bottled ale off the premises until the next licensing day. He already held a license to sell wine.

The Magistrates informed him that it would be necessary for them to consult their clerk, who was not then present, and that they would give their decision on Friday.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier 6 June, 1873. Price 1d.


Begs to inform the public that they have opened stores in Tunbridge Wells, for the sale of their Celebrated Ales and Stouts.
Mr. Ewdard Norman, Manager.

Office and Stores,

Public Rooms Tunbridge Wells.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 13 June, 1873. Price 1d.


The adjourned application of Mr. Page, of Bench Street to be permitted to sell bottled ales until the next General Licensing Day, was granted.

 Mr. Worsfold Mowll supported an application of Mr. Kingsford to be permitted to sell spirits off the premises until the next Licensing Day.

The Bench said they would adjourn the case, in order to consider it carefully. If the application were granted, the other brewers would most likely make similar applications.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 29 August 1873. Price 1d.

Tonbridge Petty Sessions

Tuesday, Aug. 26. Before G. H. Field, Esq. (in, the chair), Julian Goldsmid, Esq., M. P., Viscount Hardinge, H. D. Streatfeild, Esq., C. Powell, Esq., and Thomson Hankey, Esq.


This was the annual licensing day, and Superintendent Dance laid his report before the Bench, in which it was stated that there were no complaints except against the following houses:—

He considered that George Avards, beerhouse-keeper, ("Who'd A Thought It") of Paddock Wood, in the parish of Brenchley, was an improper person to keep a house, he being constantly drunk. He (Avards) had been brought up for permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct in the house, but he always brought forward a number of witnesses to outswear the evidence of the police;

George Waghorne, beerhouse-keeper, of Paddock Wood, had been brought up before their worships for permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct in his house;

Thomas Bailey, beerhouse-keeper, of Hadlow, did not reside on the premises for which he held the license, and underlet the premises to a man named Jenner, a convicted thief;

Augustus Ricoumini, of the "Prince of Wales" beerhouse, Tonbridge, had been fined 1 and costs for a breach of his license, on the 25th March last, and he also underlet the house to a man named Funnell.

Superintendent Dance also reported that Mr. John Perrett, of the refreshment rooms, Tonbridge Station, resided in London, but that the premises were kept by his sister-in-law, Miss Leighton, she conducting the business very well.

He also reported that complaint had been made against William Warner, of Tonbridge, for selling beer on Sunday morning. The cases of complaints mentioned in the report were ordered to stand adjourned until the 30th September.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 29 August 1873. Price 1d.


Mr. Cripps stated that he had been instructed to call the attention of the Bench to the fact, that under the new Licensing Act the attendance of publicans was not necessary. The magistrates said it must be understood in future that it would be unnecessary for publicans to attend, unless they received special notice to do so.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 29 August 1873. Price 1d.


Mr. Palmer, solicitor, applied on behalf of Mr. William Mercer, for an indoor license to sell beer at the premises occupied by him at Castle-street, Tonbridge. The premises he (Mr. Warner) said, had been occupied by applicant, who had an out-door license, for three years, and he produced evidence as to the applicant's good character. Mr. Rogers, solicitor, opposed on behalf of Messrs. Bartram, brewers, of Tonbridge, and said that he had no objection to take to the character of the applicant, who was a highly respectable man. He objected to the notices, but this the Bench over-ruled. In Tonbridge, he said, with a population of 8,000, there were no less than forty licensed houses.

The Bench declined to grant the application.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 5 September, 1873.


The general annual licensing meeting for the borough of Dover and its liberties was held at the Sessions House on Monday last, this being the second meeting under the powers of the Licensing Act. The Magistrates present were E. F. Astley (chairman), J. F. Crookes, W. R. Mowll, J. G. Churchward, R. Rees, R. Dickeson, and J. G. Smith, Esqs.


The proceedings commenced by the Magistrates hearing some applications for transfers.

“Nuptune's Hall,” Broadstairs, was transferred to Thomas Dray, the county police having no complaint against the house.

The “Wrotham Arms,” Broadstairs, was transferred to Mary White.


The Justices then proceeded to renew ale-house, beer-house, and spirit licenses for the ensuing year, the licensees answering to their names as called by the clerk, Mr. Stillwell, and proceeding to the outer hall, where they obtained their licenses.


The Magistrates complied with a request made by Mr. Fox, on behalf of Mrs. Adams, the landlady of the “Shakespeare Hotel,” and the owner of the “Liverpool Arms,” that a license for the latter house might be issued in her name as a temporary arrangement, a change of tenants being contemplated in the course of the ensuing year.

The Bench consented to the alteration of the name of the “Army and Navy” to that of “The Shah.” (Laughter.)

In the case of the “Lord Raglan,” no renewal of license was applied for.


Mr. Thomas, of Margate, enquired whether, with regard to the licensing of houses at Broadstairs, the Justices would grant new licenses at that sitting, or would merely hear the applications, and give their decisions at the adjourned meeting on the 16th?

Mr. Stilwell said the practice was for the Justices to hear such applications at Dover, and to defer their decision till the adjourned meeting, in order that they might have an opportunity of inspecting the property.

Mr. Boys thereupon addressed the Bench in support of an application for a new license made by the proprietor of an hotel at Broadstairs; but it appeared that he was not in a position top prove the service of the necessary notices on the overseers and police officer. Mr. Stilwell said that, under these circumstances, the Bench could not hear the application.

Mr. Boys asked them, that the matter might be adjourned to the Broadstairs meeting.

Mr. J. T. Moss, of Margate, opposed the application, contending that, inasmuch as his friend was unable to prove the service of the notice, he had no locus standi, and could not, therefore, asked the Justices to adjourn a matter which was not legally before them.

Mr. Stilwell said the Magistrates would adjourn licensing business generally until their meeting on the 16th; and Mr. Boys might then, if he thought fit, bring the matter before them now.

Mr. Boys asked that the Magistrates would view the premises in question before their sitting at Broadstairs commenced.

On the application of Mr. Boys, the Magistrates granted a license to Mr. Perrett, the proprietor of the refreshment buffet at the South Eastern Railway station.

Mr. Mowll applied that two licenses might be granted to Mr. Hawkes, the landlord of the “Grapes Inn,” Winchelsea Street, on the grounds that another house, which was now in course of construction, would be ready for occupation before the next licensing day; but the Magistrates were unable to comply with the request. Mr. Mowll not being in a position to prove the value of the house now being built. The application was therefore adjourned till the Broadstairs meeting.

Mr. Mowll also applied on behalf of Mr. Brazier for an ale-house license to be granted in respect of a house recently erected on the Maxton Estate, Folkestone Road.

Mr. Fox opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Wright, brewer, of Maxton.

Mr. Mowll placed Mr. Brazier in the witness box for the purpose of proving the value of the house.

Mr. Brazier produced his last poor-rate receipt, which showed the annual rateable value to be 20.

Mr. Stilwell: If a house is rated only at 20, its annual value certainly does not amount to 30.

Mr. Fox said he must object to the application on the ground that a public-house was not needed in the neighbourhood of the Maxton Estate, there being a licensed house scarcely four hundred yards distance from Mr. Brazier's premises. Independently of these circumstances, he would urge that the value of the house it was proposed to license did not meet the requirements of the Act, as taking the poor rate and adding 20 per cent a large margin would be found to exist between the amount thus arrived at and the one necessary.

Mr. Mowll: Will the Magistrates hear my application and adjourn their decision till the Broadstairs meeting?

The Chairman said he believed a similar application to the present one had been made to the Bench for several years in succession, and refused. He did not know whether Mr. Mowll had now any new arguments to advance favour of the application.

Mr. Mowll said he had. He did not propose to apply absolutely for a new license; but to ask the assent of the Bench to a compromise between Mr. Brazier and the owner of the “Tradesmen's Arms,” a licensed house situated on the Commercial Quay, who was quite willing that the license should be transferred by Mr. Brazier. By consenting to this arrangement the Justices would give Mr. Brazier his due, and at the same time remove a licensed house from an already crowded neighbourhood.

Mr. Fox said that Mr. Mowll's application was simply to the effect that the owners of the house in the Pier, finding that there were so many houses in the neighbourhood and that they could not do any business, wished to transfer the license of the “Tradesmen's Arms” to Mr. Brazier's house at Maxton, where he considered they could do better.

The Chairman said the Bench had determined last year that, unless it was fairly shown that a public-house was necessary to meet the requirements of a district, they would grant no new licenses. For several years past, the Magistrates had seen no necessity for a new public-house in the neighbourhood of Maxton, and the bench could not see that Mr. Mowll had urged any new arguments whatever in favour of the application.

Application refused.

Mr. Mowll then applied on behalf of Mr. Cessford for a license to the house No. 18 Esplanade.

The Chairman was under the impression that the house in question was leased from the Dover Harbour Board, and was, therefore, under certain restrictions, which would prevent an ale license being granted to the tenant; but Mr. Lewis said this was a misapprehension.

The Chairman asked whether Mr. Lewis had any additional evidence to that of last year to bring forward in support of his application?

Mr. Lewis said he had not; but he thought the circumstances of the case were considerably changed and would warrant the Justices in granting a license. Mr. Cessford was unable to carry on the house in question as a lodging-house with that benefit to himself which might fairly be expected; but by converting it into a high-class boarding house, he thought he might benefit both himself and the public. For this purpose he required a license. In arriving at their decision, he would ask the Magistrates not to take into consideration their refusal of the previous year. The business of lodging-house keeper had certainly deteriorated of late, and was by no means so profitable as it had once been. If only for the sake of maintaining the prosperity of the town as a resort for visitors, it was necessary to establish a boarding-house of the description contemplated by Mr. Cessford. It was all very well to say, “Let people take lodgings,” but a great many who only contemplated a short stay by the sea-side had a dislike for lodgings, while a boarding-house would just meet their requirements. Additional bedroom accommodation, too, was frequently required by large families paying a short visit to the town. But without a license, Mr. Cessford would be unable to supply his customers even with a glass of beer. Mr. Lewis pointed out to the bench the inconvenience of a lodging-house keeper having to pay a 25 duty on a glass of beer supplied to a lodger; and he drew an amusing picture of a domestic servant, on being sent for some beer, finding the bridge swung, and having to wait half-an-hour before procuring the needed beverage. If the Bench would grant Mr. Cessford the license, the house would be carried on respectably, and would really be a great convenience for all the neighbouring houses. He knew the tendency of the Bench was not to grant unnecessary licenses, but he would call attention to the remarks of the Chairman that they were not declined to grant licenses where they were really necessary. He knew he was labouring under the disadvantage of the license having been refused in the previous year; but he would ask them to look at it de novo, to consider the matter upon its merits, and to say that under the circumstances they could grant the license.

Mr. Fox, who opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Iverson, the landlord of the “Union Tavern,” failed to see that Mr. Lewis had in any way improved his case by new arguments. In reply, he would urge on the Bench that he had submitted last year, viz., that the class of people who took lodgings on the Waterloo Crescent and the Esplanade had a cask of beer in their cellars, and therefore suffered no inconvenience from the absence of a licensed house, and that the issuing of a license for a house on the Esplanade would have the effect of destroying the respectability of the whole of that portion of the Sea Front.

The bench refused the application.

Application was then made by Mr. Mowll on behalf of William Reynolds Marsh, proprietor of the “Oxford Music Hall,” Last Lane, for a spirit license.

The applicant having disposed that the rent he paid for the hall exceeded 30 – the sum required by the Act.

Mr. Mowll in the outset explained how it was that the “Oxford” had not already a spirit license. The former tenant, Mr. Tapsell, it appeared, had by some misconduct forfeited the license; but this, he apprehended, would not influence the minds of the magistrates with respect to the present application, as it must be remembered that the hall was no in the hands of a new tenant; and was conducted in a proper and becoming manner. Places of amusement of a music hall class were, Mr. Mowll contended, an absolute necessity in a garrison town like Dover for the diversity of the soldiers; and he submitted that a man who maintained the respectability of a music hall, frequented as such places of resort usually were by a class of people among whom it was most difficult to preserve order, was worthy the full confidence of the Justices. Notwithstanding that a great deal of unnecessary police supervision had been exercised over his client's premises, not a single complaint had been brought against the house during his tenancy – a period of ten months. He anticipated that a long list of public-houses in the vicinity of Last Lane would be read buy Mr. Fox, who, he understood opposed the application; but was it to be expected that individuals would pay a visit to a music-hall and in the course of the entertainment leave the house for the purpose of obtaining spirits at Mr. So-and-So's, next door?

Mr. Fox contended that spirits were not an absolute necessitiy to people who visited music-halls, and mentioned half-a-dozen licensed houses within a stone's throw of the “Oxford.”

Mr. Wollaston Knocker opposed the application of Mr. Mowll on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners of the “Chance.” He would not deny that music-halls were not necessary in a town like Dover; but he questioned whether spirit licenses were a requisite adjunct to such places of entertainment. There were twenty-two licensed houses in the immediate vicinity of the “Oxford,” eight of which belonged to Messrs. Leney and Co. It was extremely difficult for a publican to obtain a livelihood in Dover, and he maintained that to increase the number of spirit licenses unnecessarily would be an injustice to those who at present held them.

The magistrates adjourned their decision in this case till the Broadstairs meeting.

An application my Mr. Mowll, on behalf of Mr. Brazier, to sell liquor off his premises, was acceded to.

Wine licenses were granted to Mr. Frederick Samuel Pierce and Mr. George Page.

Application was made by Mr. Mowll, on behalf of Messrs. Simmonds, brewer, of Reading for permission to sell by retail off the premises.

Mr. Fox opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Archer, the landlord of the “Salutation;” but it was ultimately granted.


Charles Pain, the landlord of the “Fountain;” John Chapman, “Duke of Wellington;” Hatton Brown, “Mile Stone;” and Edward pay, the “Globe,” were called forward and addressed by the Chairman, who, after cautioning them. Said that the Magistrates had determined to be very stringent during the ensuring year; and in a case of a conviction, their license would be suppressed.


The decision of the Justices, with regard to the licenses of the “Lion,” the “Terminus,” the “Gate,” the “Star and Garter,” the “Marquis of Anglesey,” and the “Plough” was withheld till the Broadstairs meeting.

The license of the “Cambridge Arms,” in Adrian Street, was forfeited.

With respect to the “Red Lion,” St. James's Street, the Superintendent of Police said that a man had, during the past twelve months, been taken into custody on a charge of stealing money from a till; and Mrs. Coxan, the landlady of the “Red Lion,” had sworn that the prisoner was at her house during the time the robbery was committed. The man afterwards admitted the robbery.]

Mrs. Coxan said she remembered nothing whatever of the circumstances detailed by the Superintendent; and the magistrates thereupon ordered the matter to stand over till the Broadstairs meeting.


Application was made by Mr. Mowll for the transfer of the “Sir John Falstaff,” Ladywell, to Alfred Rutter. The applicant, it seemed, was a tailor, and would be absent from the house during the day, when it was proposed that his wife, who was scarcely of age, should take charge of the premises.

The bench were reluctant to grant the transfer under these circumstances; but ultimately, on Mr. Royce offering to bear the responsibility, consented.

The “Perseverance” was transferred to Richard banks, who had been in the employ of Mr. Thisleton, grocer, for a number of years.

The license of the “Comet” was transferred from the present tenant, an old man named Small, who had held the license for a period of thirty-eight years, to an applicant giving the name of Johnson.

The “Devonshire Arms” was transferred to Frederick Butcher; the “Cherry Tree,” Buckland, to Charles Banks; and the “New Inn” to Lewis Peters.

The application for the transfer of the “Carpenter's Arms” to Henry James Foster, was adjourned till the meeting on the 16th.

The proceedings then terminated.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.


At the Police Court, on Saturday last, before the Mayor (C. Ellis, Esq.), in the chair, H. W. Joy, G. Wickham, D. S. White, and J. H. Hills, Esqrs., the annual licensing session was held. Mr. J. B. Stephens, solicitor to the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, applied to the Bench for an extension of time in the business hours, viz., until 12 o’clock on week-days and 11 o'clock on Sundays. This application was supported by a memorial signed by the licensed victuallers of the town. It appeared, however, that sufficient, notice had not been given of the intended application, and the Bench therefore announced that they would consider the case on the adjourned licensing day, a month hence. A further application by Mr. Stephens, made under the 42nd section of the Licensing Act, asking the magistrates to dispense with the attendance of the landlords on the licensing day, was likewise adjourned for a month. In support of this latter application Mr. Stephens contended that the attendance at this court was a great and unnecessary waste of time to the landlords, to the renewal of whose licences no objections were made, he also stated that a similar request by Mr. Cripps, to the Tonbridge magistrates, had been acceded to. Memorials were read from the different teetotal orders in the town praying the Bench not to grant any new licences, to reduce, as far as possible, the number of old ones, and to curtail the business hours to the limits allowed by the act, viz., from 7 a,m, to 10 p. m. on week-days and 9 p. m. on Sundays. The proceedings were adjourned for a month.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.


Mr. W. C. Cripps drew the attention of the magistrates to the wording of the New Licensing Act respecting the service of notices on publicans. He was of opinion that the notices should be given, but he now applied that their worships should instruct their clerk to state on the bottom of the notices that personal attendance was not necessary. The Chairman remarked that Mr. Cripps might recollect that at Mark Cross last year the magistrates announced in Court that in future personal attendance would not be necessary, and it would be well for them to do the same that day. Mr. Browell said, as he understood the matter, Mr. Cripps asked for something to be added to the notice. Mr. Cripps replied that was so. The Chairman (A. C. Ramsden, Esq. ) then announced that in future it would not be necessary for persons holding licenses, and who were not objected to, to attend. The Clerk (T. F. Simpson, Esq. ) wished those present to understand that in the event of non-attendance they would have to send for their licenses; the Clerk would not send the licenses. The Chairman: And they must bring the fees (laughter). The Clerk: Of course. Mr. Cripps's application was therefore granted, and the Clerk was requested to insert the words suggested on the notices in future.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.

Tunbridge Wells Petty Sessions.

Town Hall, Monday, Sept. ist. Before A. C. Ramsden, Esq. (in the chair),J. Stone Wigg, Esq.,W. F. Browell,Esq., F. W. Curtis, Esq., and G. Fereday . Smith, Esq.


This was the day appointed for the annual Brewster Sessions.


Superintendent Dance, K. C. C. presented his annual report to the Bench, in which he stated that he had no complaint to make. The following sentence expressed the Superintendent’s opinion of the new Licensing Act and its operations:— "I consider that the new Licensing Act has worked well, and has checked a great deal of drunkenness and breaches of licenses." Superintendent Embery also presented his report, and said that he had no complaint to make.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.



Mr. Cripps, in the case of Mrs. Gearing, who applied that the license previously held by her deceased husband might be granted to her personally, said that Mrs. Gearing came before the Bench last week, when she said that she had not taken out letters of administration. That was a misapprehension, as the necessary legal steps had been taken some time before that, and he then produced the letters of administration duly stamped and signed. The Bench immediately granted the license to Mrs. Gearing.

At present I do now know where this pub is situated. Paul Skelton.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.


Mr. W. C. Cripps, solicitor to the Tunbridge Wells Licensed Victuallers’ Protection Association, addressing the Bench, said he had an application to make on behalf of the licensed victuallers of Tunbridge Wells and the district. He had to ask the Bench to consider the question whether the hours now in force for closing public-houses were fair and reasonable, and whether the time had not arrived for their worships to make an extension. The Bench, at the last annual licensing meeting, very properly determined that a fair trial should be given to the Act. The experiment had been made, and it must be borne in mind that it was, after all, but an experiment. The learned gentleman then went on to say that the public, under the present arrangement, did not receive that amount of accommodation it ought to have, and the licensed victuallers, who had embodied their complaints in a memorial which he should read to their worships, both for their own interests and in justice to their customers, felt that there ought to be a reasonable extension. The magistrates, from the way in which they had renewed the licenses, must be satisfied with the admirable manner in which the houses had been conducted, and that being so, he asked them to grant a reasonable extension, which the publicans asked for not so much from a desire on their own behalf as being absolutely necessary for the comfort and convenience of the public. There were certain facts which he must bring before their worships, and which would show that a necessity existed for an extension. On a Sunday night the last train from Brighton arrived in Tunbridge Wells at ten o’clock, so that everybody coming from Brighton to Tunbridge Wells by that train was unable to obtain refreshment, and he might also mention that in the week-days the last train from London arrived at the South-Eastern Railway Station at eight minutes to eleven, so that there was no possibility of persons who arrived by that train having a reasonable time allowed them in which to obtain refreshment. A gentleman, it was true, might be driven at once to his home, where he would obtain everything he required from his own cellar, but that was not so with the great majority of persons, and their worships would no doubt agree with him that all classes of society had a right to an equal degree of consideration. He then read the following: — "To the Licensing Justices in Brewster Sessions assembled, — This memorial humbly sheweth,—There is vested in your worshipful body a power conferred by the 24th section of the Licensing Act, 1872, whereby you are enabled, at any annual general licensing meeting or adjournment thereof, to alter the hours in force during which intoxicating liquors are to be sold by retail. Now, therefore, we pray that that power may be exercised on this occasion by fixing such hours as follows:— From 5 o’clock a. m. to 12 o’clock p. m. on week-days, and 1 o’clock p. m. to 3. 0 p. m., and 5. 0 p. m. to 11. 0 p. m. on Sundays and similar days. In support of our prayer we submit the following facts and matters to your consideration. Prior to the commencement of the above Act your memorialists were entitled to open their houses at 4. 0 a. m. on Monday morning and keep them open continuously until 12 on Saturday night, and on Sundays and similar days opening from the termination of Divine service to 3. 0 p. m., and again from 5. 0 p. m. to 11. 0. p. m. Notwithstanding this liberty, reasonable hours were adhered to, and the trade was carried on so well that there were scarcely any complaints, and during the last 12 months, viz., from Michaelmas, 1871, to Michaelmas, 1872, the cases of drunkenness brought before your worships numbered 75, being about 3 per 1000 of the inhabitants, while the offenders were repeatedly the same individuals. We contend and are prepared to show that the hours now in force cause great inconvenience and annoyance to vast numbers of persons who use the public-house without abusing it—thus a respectable body of tradesmen (your memorialists) and thousands of the public at large are made to suffer for the drunken few who are not deterred by the shortening of hours from committing excesses, as is proved by police statistics, which show that the drunken charges are as Numerous at early hours in the day as late at night. Your memorialists further urge that the wholesale curtailment of hours last year was contrary to the intention of the Legislature, as evinced by the introduction of the elastic clause, which has rarely been made use of, a circumstance which the late Home Secretary himself strongly commented upon. The principal object set forth in the preamble of the present Act is “the better prevention of drunkenness,” and recalling the stress laid upon the shortening of the hours of sale as a means of effecting this, we have taken some pains to ascertain how far this expectation has been realized, and information from official sources warrants our saying that the results go far to show that, as a means of diminishing drunkenness, there is little virtue in an early hour. The Customs and Excise returns show a largely increased consumption of intoxicating liquors, and it is a well-known fact that this is in no way attributable to the trade of the licensed victuallers of the country — on the contrary, it is referable to the enormously increased extent to which private drinking is now carried on—demoralizing thousands who would never have been affected by the publicans’ trade. Your memorialists, in conclusion, respectfully solicit attention to two points worthy of your consideration-first, that the present administration of the Act does not in any way affect the rich; and secondly, the effect upon the members of our trade throughout the country which this curtailment of hours, taken in conjunction with other hardships they suffer under the new Licensing Act, has driven them into combinations, introducing discontent and agitation which is disturbing and injurious to society at large. Respectfully asking for the foregoing the unbiased consideration of your worships, your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. ’He had also to mention that a return had been asked for by the licensed victuallers from the superintendent of police, showing the cases of drunkenness which had been disposed of by their worships. The return was as follows:— 'Charges of drunkenness in Tunbridge Wells for 12 months, from 1st Sept., 1872, to 31st August, 1873, inclusive— males 68, females 22, total 90. From 1st September, 1871, to 31st August, 1872, total 73. Increase in 1873 over 1872, 17. ' The Act had now worked for a year, and they could see that the experience had not been the diminishing of drunkenness. In fact, the statistics throughout the country had proved to the contrary. The memorial, Mr. Cripps said, was not signed by the whole of the licensed victuallers, but those who had signed were authorised to do so on behalf of the others. He must also mention that no application of a similar description was made at Tonbridge at the recent licensing meeting, but that was because it was thought desirable that the application should be made at the adjourned meeting. The licensed victuallers felt that not so much in their own interest as in the interest of the public they were bound to ask for what they considered to be a fair and reasonable extension, to enable the travelling public and those for whom public-houses were specially intended, to obtain a reasonable amount of accommodation, and what he asked for he hoped the Bench would sanction. After these remarks, and what he had submitted respecting the working of the act during the past year, he should leave the matter in the hands of their worships, asking them to fix such hours for opening and closing as the accommodation of the public required. With regard to the increase or decrease of drunkenness, statistics had been obtained by the licensed victuallers throughout the country, and a return which had been obtained from Supt. Embery, would be laid before their worships for consideration. Mr. Browell said, as he understood it, Mr. Cripps in addition to an extension of the hours on the week-days asked that the time on Sundays might be changed from what they were at present, to opening from one till three, and from six till eleven. Mr. Cripps replied that that was so; but it was only a modification not an extension. The alteration was asked for because under the present arrangement, licensed victuallers and their families could not attend church on the Sunday morning. Mr. G. Bailey, here stepped forward and remarked that he was there to oppose the granting of any new licences or any extension of the time for keeping open public-houses. There had been a petition pot into his hands, for presentation to the Bench, by a few friends who had canvassed the lower end of Camden-road, for signatures, and they had obtained a hundred he believed. The feeling of those who had signed the memorial was that no more public houses or beer-shops were required in the neighbourhood, and that instead of the hours being extended they ought to be shortened. He had been asked to present the memorial in the absence of the Rev. George Jones, who would very willingly have done so had he been able. The present Prime Minister had said that the laws ought to be of such a nature as to make it easy for people to do right and difficult for them to do wrong, and he put it to their worships that they then had it in their power to carry out this principle. Mr. Cripps here interposed, and said he must object to a discussion on the general question, which he had carefully refrained from entering upon. Mr. Bailey replied that he had no wish to raise a discussion. Unlike Mr. Cripps he was not accustomed to address the Bench on such subjects, and therefore as he could not do it in the same able way their worships must excuse him. He then handed in the memorial from the inhabitants of the lower end of Camden-road, which was read by the Clerk, (T. F. Simpson, Esq. ), as follows:—‘To the Worshipful the Magistrates of the Licensing Division of the Town of Tunbridge Wells. Gentlemen,—We the undersigned; being inhabitants of Camden-road and vicinity, having learned that an application has been made to your worships to grant new licenses in the above named road; also that an application has been made for keeping public-houses open later, do most earnestly and respectfully entreat you not to accede to such applications. In the interests therefore of the poorer inhabitants of this town, especially of many of the women and children of the above neighbourhood, who cannot but look to your wisdom for some protection, and care in the interests of this important town, and in the cause of what is right and good, we do most earnestly entreat you rather than grant new licenses to lessen them, and rather than lengthen the time for keeping the houses open to shorten the time. We beg to remain, most respectfully year most obedient servants. ' Then followed the signatures, 111 in number. Mr. Bailey then went on to say that the Good Templars, who numbered 300, had held a meeting and passed a resolution. Mr. Cripps objected to this, contending that anything which the Good Templars might have done at their private meetings, ought not to influence the Bench in any way. The resolution could not be received. In reply to the Clerk, Mr. Bailey said the resolution was really a requisition, addressed to the Bench by the Good Templars, after which it was allowed to be put in, and was as follows: ‘To the Worshipful the Magistrates of the Town of Tunbridge Wells. The Independent Order of Good Templars, of the various Lodges of this town, knowing that several licenses to open new houses have keen applied for, we humbly pray, that, in the interest and well being of the town, it will not grant the applications. The following resolution was unanimously carried:—'That we ask the Worshipful the Magistrates of the Town of Tunbridge Wells, not to grant any new licenses, and not to lengthen the hours of existing licenses. Signed on behalf of the above, John Boulden, the Deputy of the Grand Worthy Chief Templar of England, Joseph Malins 27th August, 1873,’ (laughter). Mr. Browell is that for all England? Mr. Bailey:- No only for Tunbridge Wells. The Clerk:- 'The gentleman who signs his name is the 'Deputy of the Grand Worthy Chief (loud laughter). The Magistrates consulted for a few moments, when the Chairman announced that while it unnecessary to give their reasons the Magistrates declined to grant any extension of the time for keeping open on week days; but they were willing to take the alteration on Sunday and fix the hours from one to three if they wished it. Mr Cripps after consulting with Mr. C Rowe, secretary to Tunbridge Wells Licensed Victuallers Protection Association, and one or two of the leading members of the trade, who had remained in court while the applications was being made, said as there appeared to be a slight difference of opinion on the point amongst those he represented, he did not ask for the alteration to be made.


Mr. Warner, of the firm of Gorham and Warner, solicitors, Tonbridge, applied on behalf of Mr. William Barrett, of Carlow place, Quarry road, for a license to sell spirits by retail, to be drunk on the premises, at the above address. Mr. Cripps on behalf of Messrs. Kelsey, opposed the granting of the application. The service, posting, and advertising of the notices, was proved by the applicant. Mr. Warner, in the course of an able speech said he had to apply to their Worships to grant a full license to the house occupied by Mr. Barrett, which had at this time only an out-door license. There were several reasons he should mention why the application should be granted, and the first was that the house was within a short distance of the Medway wharf, a place where a large amount of business was transacted, and which was visited by a great number of persons Messrs. Willicombe and Oakley’s building yard was also near, and the house was also close to the town stone yard. Then another, and a very strong reason why the license should be granted was that the house was situated close to the public swimming bath. He considered that it was necessary there should be a licensed house near the bath, so that in case of accident restoratives might be procured without delay. Under those circumstances he (Mr. Warner) felt that Mr. Barrett did well to apply for the license, and although there had not yet been any serious accident at the swimming bath they did not know what might occur. Mr. Browell said with respect to accidents at the bath it was scarcely as Mr. Warner had stated. The Clerk (T. F. Simpson Esq.): One man was drowned. Mr. Warner: I was not aware of that circumstance, which makes my case all the stronger. The Clerk: He did not want any refreshment (laughter). Mr. Warner resuming his address said that the house contained the accommodation requisite for a licensed inn, and there was capital stabling, which was most important, when they took into consideration the way in which Government moved troops about in the present day. The character of his client was most satisfactory. Another great thing in favour of the license being granted was that it would be a free house, which would enable the people living in the neighbourhood to get a change of beer when they desired it. He contended that the neighbourhood was such as to call for another licensed house to meet its requirements, and he handed in a numerously signed memorial in favour of the application. Mr. Barrett, the applicant, was then called, but Mr Cripps said it was unnecessary to occupy the time of the court by taking his evidence, as he (Mr. Cripps) should not dispute any of the particulars the applicant was called to prove. Mr. Cripps then delivered a forcible speech, in which he contended that there was no necessity for a license to be granted to a house situated at the place where Mr. Barrett’s premises stood. He ridiculed the idea of a public-house being necessary for the accommodation of those who used the swimming bath, and said if his learned friend was in earnest in what he said on that subject he wondered that he did not suggest that a nicely shaped model of Noah’s Ark should be charged with spirits, licensed, and for the convenience of visitors to the swimming bath launched and allowed to float there (laughter). It was undesirable that there should be a public-house near, at which the men employed at the Medway Wharf, Messrs. Willicombe and Oakley’s yard, or the town stone yard, could get drink if they were so inclined, and shirk their work. Mr. Anscombe here stepped forward and said that he also opposed the granting of the license. The Chairman said the Bench declined to grant the license. Mr. Warner, then said he must apply for an indoor beer license. The Chairman intimated that they should not grant any indoor license in this case, and upon hearing that remark, Mr. Warner said he should not proceed farther with the matter.


The notices required by law had been given in this case for an application for a spirit license, but Mr. Kelsey intimated that this year no application would be made. Mr. Browell: Is there not a licensed house next door? Mr. Cripps said he was instructed to oppose.


Mr. Cripps applied on behalf of Mr. John Roberts, of St. James’s-road, Tunbridge Wells, for a spirit license. Mr. Cripps supported the application, and Mr. Warner, solicitor, opposed on behalf of Mr. Barrett, whose application had been refused. Mr. Anscombe opposed on his own behalf. Mr. John Jeffery proved the service, posting, and advertising of the notices. Mr. Cripps in making the application, alluded to the circumstance that a spirit license was granted to this house by the Bench last year but was refused by the Court of Quarter Sessions, on the ground that the distance at which the premises were situated from the nearest licensed house was incorrectly stated before their worships. He was bound to state in justice to Messrs. Kelsey, by whom he was instructed, that the information furnished to him was perfectly correct, and the error was therefore on his part, and was occasioned no doubt through his attention having to be directed to the number of cases in which he was engaged, on a day like that. He was quite sure that he would not wilfully mislead the Bench in any matter, and that they were fully aware of that. The several gentlemen on the Bench signified their concurrence in the remark. Mr. Cripps then went on to say that his clients were anxious that on this occasion the case should be correctly stated so that their Worships should decide the case on its merits. He contended that the public convenience required a licensed house where these premises were situated, and that the case was one in which a license ought to be granted. Witnesses were then examined and from the evidence adduced it appeared that the house was 437 yards distant from the "Black Horse," the nearest licensed house, and that since the licensing of that house 134 new houses had been built on the building ground m the immediate vicinity of the premises for which a license was now asked. Mr. W. H. Wright, architect and surveyor, was called, and produced plans, and said that the premises were well built, and contained the accommodation necessary for a licensed inn. In cross-examination by Mr. Warner, witness said the premises were really two cottages with a large bar added. Mr. Warner in opposing the license contended that there was no necessity for it. Mr. Anscombe then said that the neighbourhood did not require another licensed house. He did not see why the magistrates should grant this application as they would not give him a license last year. The Bench refused to grant a spirit license, and they also declined to grant an in-door beer license.


Mr. Cripps applied on behalf of Mr. John Haley, for a spirit license to the above house. There was no opposition. Mr. Cripps, in support of the application, said that the house which was licensed for the sale of beer and wine, by retail to be drunk on the premises, was for many years kept by Mr. Haley, sen., on whose decease it passed into the hands of his son, the present applicant. The house was used by a large number of tradesmen, and persons who occupied good positions in the town, and for whose accommodation it was essential that Mr. Haley should have a spirit license. The house which was in every respect well suited for the purposes of an inn, was situated opposite the Kifle Drill Hall. The argument formerly used when a person having an indoor beer license applied for a full license, was that he was anxious to have the power to keep his house open all night, but there was nothing of the sort to be said now. It was, he thought, simply absurd that a man should hold a license for the sale of wine and beer and yet not be permitted to supply his customers with spirits should they desire him to do so. Mr. Haley was called, and in reply to questions put to him, said that the house which was his own property, was situated at a distance of 300 yards from any other licensed public-house. The Chairman, after consulting with his colleagues, said: The license is not granted.


Licenses to sell beer by retail to be drunk off the premises, were granted to Mr. M. F. Connor, of 114, Camden-road, Tunbridge Wells, and to Mr. William Sands, Auckland-road, Tunbridge Wells.


Licenses for the sale by retail of wine, beer, spirits and British wines, were granted to the grocers of the town and neighbourhood, who applied for them.


It was announced by the Clerk, that the adjourned annual licensing meeting would be held that day month.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 September, 1873.


The Mayor having vacated the chair, the Licensing Justices sat for the purpose of hearing applications for alterations in the hours of closing, Dr. Astley taking the seat vacated by his Worship.

Mr. Fox renewed his application on behalf of the Licenses Victuallers' Association for an extension of the time of closing by the licensed houses of Dover at 12 p.m. on week days and 11 p.m. on Sundays. Mr. Fox, after repeating his former arguments in support of his application, said he had ascertained that, at Margate, the Magistrates had acceded to a similar application to that which is now made.

The magistrates' Clerk read a list of the hours of closing at neighbouring towns; and it appeared that the only seaport where any alteration had taken place was Folkestone, where the houses closed at 12 p.m. on week days and at 10 p.m. on Sundays.

The Bench retired, and on their return, after an absence of about half-an-hour, the Chairman said the Justices had determined to refuse the application.

The Bench subsequently gave permission to the following houses to open at 3.30 in the morning:- The “Rose and Crown,” “Duchess of Kent,” “Ship Inn,” “Princess Maud,” “Cinque Port Arms,” “Liberty,” “Garrick's Head,” “Brussels Inn,” and “Terminus Inn.”


Mr. Till applied on behalf of Mr. Robins, landlord of the “Bricklayer's Arms,” Snargate Street, for a spirit license; but the application was refused.

On the application of Mr. Coleman, wine licenses were granted to Messrs. Cresey and Hinckley, of Broadstairs.


Mr. Mowll applied for permission to inspect the deposition taken at the examination of a man charged with till robbery – he referred to the case in which Mrs. Coxan, the landlady of the “Red Lion,” was concerned. Mrs. Coxan was his client; and he would have to represent her when her license was under consideration before the Justices at Broadstairs, on the 16th inst.

The Bench gave the desired permission.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 19 September, 1873.


At the annual licensing sessions for the Sittingbourne district, held on Monday, the Sheerness licensing victuallers asked that their hours might be from five o’clock in the morning until midnight, except on Sundays. The Vicar of St. Paul’s, Sheerness, the Rev. John Ellison, spoke against the application, and he was supported by the Rev. Mr. Tubb, who presented nine numerously-signed memorials from the congregations of various places of worship. The Superintendent of Police (Mr. Mayne) said that since the passing of the new Licensing Act there had been less drunkenness in the streets as well as on licensed premises. The Bench declined to grant the application so far as keeping the houses open later at night was concerned, but gave permission to licensed victuallers (as they did last year) to open their houses at five in the morning. Two or three new licences were applied for, but were refused.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 3 October, 1873.

The Licensed Victuallers and the Beersellers.

Saturday last was the day appointed as the general meeting for the hearing of adjourned licensing matters. The magistrates present were the Mayor (C. Elliss, Esq.), Dr. Monckton, W. Lawrence, T. Clifford, J. B. Green, and T. H. Hills, Esqrs.

The magistrates’ clerk (Mr. J. Case) read a memorial signed by 1,259 inhabitants of Maidstone, asking the Bench not to extend the hours to which public-houses may be kept open. Mr. Case also read a petition from the beer-house keepers of the town, making a similar request. This memorial was signed by 62 beersellers.

Mr. J. B. Stephens, solicitor to the Licensed Victualler’s Association of Maidstone, said he felt that he was labouring under great difficulties in making his application, after hearing the two petitions just read; his clients, however, were perfectly sure that their worships would be actuated by none but the most lofty motives in giving their decision. The licensed victuallers came before them with clean hands, there not having been a single case before the Bench during the past twelve months. Their worships were aware that there were two club-houses in the town. When eleven o’clock came a gentleman in a public-house would take up his hat and proceed to his club, where he could stay as long as he pleased. This was also the case with the artisans, who also had a club. The licensed victuallers felt this to be a grievance. If the Bench did not feel inclined to grant the metropolitan time, which was enjoyed at Folkestone and Ramsgate, he would ask them to make some amelioration in the hours.

Mr. Charles A. Case said he was instructed to appear, on behalf of the beer-sellers of Maidstone, to support the petition just read from them. The ground of their objection to the granting of the hours was, firstly that it would be against their own pecuniary interest, and secondly that, with the other inhabitants of Maidstone, they desired that the town should be in a quiet state during the night. The Bench had no power to grant the beer-sellers till twelve o’clock to keep their houses open, though they paid as much duty on their licences as the sellers of wine and spirits. They would thus feel it was an injustice if the publicans should be allowed to keep open their houses an hour later than themselves.

The Mayor said that the magistrates had carefully considered the application. The memorial presented by Mr. Stephens a month ago had been considered by the bench since that time. Order and quiet had prevailed in Maidstone to a great extent, in consequence of the Act curtailing the hours, and Mr. Stephens would agree with this, because he had said that there had been no cases before the bench during the past year. The application the publicans presented a month ago, he noticed, was only signed by 43 out of the 76 licensed victuallers. The Bench refused the application.

Mr. Charles A. Case applied on behalf of Messrs. Fremlin for the removal of a licence from a house in Earl-street to one in Stone-street.

The Bench thought it best that he should apply for a fresh licence, which was done, and the application was granted.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 3 October, 1873.


Mr. Powell asked Superintendent Dance if he knew the proportion of public-houses and beershops with the population of Tonbridge?

Superintendent Dance could not say, without going through the list. He knew there were too many.

A certificate to sell beer and sweets off the premises was granted to John Fielder, of Southborough.