Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Deal Notes of 1875


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 11 September, 1875. 1d.


The above meeting was held at the Guildhall on Thursday morning, when the magistrates present were the Mayor, and Dr. F. T. Hulke, G. Hughes, Esq., W. M. Cavell, Esq., T. W. Denne, Esq., and T. Roope, Esq. A large number of publicans and grocers attended and had their licenses renewed.

The license of the "Phoenix" public-house was transferred from Joseph Woodhams to Thomas Riley.

The license of the "Royal Exchange Hotel" was renewed in the name of Miss Catherine Ann Neary, daughter of the late occupier, Mrs. Donnoghae, deceased.

Mr. Marley made an application with reference to the license of the "Brickmaker's Arms," of which house he is the owner. He stated the house had been without a tenant for about three or four months and he was now endeavouring to get a new tenant. The magistrates reserved their decision till Thursday next.


This was an application by Mr. D. M. Hills, brewer, for authority to build a new public-house in King Street, and the application was opposed by Mr. Laundy.

Mr. Till, of the firm Minter and Till, of Folkestone, appeared to support the application, and Mr. Edmund Thomas, barrister, appeared for Mr. Laundy.

Mr. Till, in opening the case for his client, said he made application for a special grant for a license under the 22nd section of the Licensing Act of 1874. His client was desirous of closing his public-house in Union Street, known as the "Fleur-de-Lis," and opening premises in King Street. He intended to have two old houses pulled down King Street, and a really first rate public-house substituted, and he (Mr. Till) was in a position to show that the alteration would be a very considerable improvement  to the neighbourhood. He understood there was an opposition to the application, the ground of which, he was informed, was simply that there was no need of any further or other public-house accommodation, that would be prejudicial to the neighbourhood, and prejudicially effect the value of the premises adjoining. In the first place, as to the granting of further public-house licenses, how could they be increasing the number of licenses when they were simply transferring it from one house to another? It was hard to conceive how, by substituting a fine house, like the one Mr. Hills intended to build, for two second-class houses could be prejudicial to the neighbourhood. A memorial had been signed by a large number of people in the town who were well-known, who were of opinion that the proposed house would be an improvement to the town. There was also a memorial on the other side, but he very much doubted if the persons who signed it had a full knowledge of what kind of premises was proposed to build.

Mr. Edward Wickens Fry, examined by Mr. Till, said: I am an architect and surveyor practising in Deal and Dover, I produce plans relating to Messrs. Hills proposed new premises in King Street. The annual value of the house would be 30 per annum, I have made provisions in my plan for three rooms for public use. Two very poor houses are to be removed, and I am of opinion that the alteration will very much improve the neighbourhood.

By Mr. Hughes: The whole area of the premises would be about 44 feet frontage in King Street and 20 feet in Middle Street.

By Mr. Thomas: I know Mr. Bent's premises. The building I propose to erect would not interfere with Mr. Bent's right of way. I am not able to say whether there are 15 public-houses in the neighbourhood at the present time. There would be three bedrooms.

Mr. Daniel Macintosh Hills was next called. He deposed that he was the owner of No. 5 and 6 King Street. He considered that the alteration he proposed to make would be an improvement to the neighbourhood. Mr. Bent's right of passage would be reserved.

By Mr. Thomas: The "Fleur-di-Lis" in Union Street. There are two other licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood.

Mr. Thomas then addressed the magistrates in opposition to the application. He contended that there was no necessity for this new public-house in King Street, because the neighbourhood had a sufficient supply. There were, he proved, as many as 15 public-houses within 200 yards of the spot where the applicant proposed to build a new one, and he hoped the Bench would discard the idea that another one is required. It was a lamentable state of things that there were public-houses at the rate of one to every thirty inhabitants, and now the Bench were asked to make an addition to that number (Mr. Till signified dissent), and really do an injury to the present number of publicans. On behalf of the inhabitants of Deal in general and the people residing in King Street in particular, he denied that this was a judicious application. He had reason to believe that in the petition handed in by the applicant's solicitor it had been represented to those who had signed it that Mr. Hills intended to open an hotel; but in the plan given in and explained by the architect it appeared that there would only be three bedrooms. Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessec, the respected Borough Member, had been said to complain that there was not sufficient hotel accommodation in Deal, and he (Mr. Thomas) quite agreed that if it were intended to build a new hotel it might prove a great boon to the community; but how could a house with only three bedrooms in it be called a hotel? It was really no other than a pet-house, and this, it was said, would prove an improvement to the neighbourhood. Mr. Bent had a very strong objection to the application, because the proposed house would interfere with his right of way. If the Bench granted the application he was quite sure they would be instituting a case in the Court of Chancery. With regard to the petition against the application, he assured them his client had taken the opinion of people in the immediate neighbourhood who held an influential position in the town.

On reference to the applicant's petition, the Magistrates' Clerk discovered that the proposed new building was described as an hotel.

The Bench then retired, and after an absence of about ten minutes the Mayor stated that the magistrates were unanimously of opinion that there had not been sufficient reason brought before them to justify them in granting the application.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 11 September, 1875. 1d.


The "Brickmaker's Arms," Mr. George Marley, agent for Mr. Matthews, applied for a renewal of the license of the "Brickmaker's Arms."

The Reve. Dr. Payne, Incumbent of S. George's Church, C. S. E. Woolmer, Rector of St. Andrew's Church, and J. T. Bartram, Congregational minister, attended the court to oppose the application. It was contended that the house was generally recognised as being of a disreputable character, and was a great annoyance to the people of the neighbourhood. Dr. Payne stated that he had been witness to a great deal of misery at that house, and it had been a source of much trouble to him. He had been requested by many of the townspeople to make objection to the application. Mr. Woolmer said he also had been requested to object to the application, as it was known as a common harbour for prostitutes.

Mr. Marley said he believed it was the usual mode of procedure when applications were to be opposed to give notice of the intention to do so. He must ask the Bench to adjourn the case, as he was not prepared for it, and Messrs. Matthews would then have an opportunity of consulting a solicitor.

The Magistrates, after a discussion, adjourned the case for a fortnight.


Mr. Morris Langley applied for the renewal of the license of the "Fleur-de-Lis," Union Street, a house which has for a long time been closed.

The magistrates deliberated for a short time, and the Mayor then said: There is a very great objection on the part of the magistrates, myself included, to grant a renewal of the license of this house. The business of the house has gone gradually down, and been closed for some time past, and the Bench are of opinion that there seems no probability of the house being again required. We do not care to grant a renewal to you, who are a mere nominal tenant, in the hope of a new tenant for the premises being some day procured, and as we think the business has very fairly died out of use we shall not grant your application.

Mr. Langley asked the Bench to adjourn the case, and on being refused he gave notice of his intention to appeal against the decision.


The landlord of this public-house made an application for the renewal of the premises to open premises an hour earlier than the time specified, viz., at five o'clock.

The Bench inquired if there had been any irregularity take place at the premises. It was stated that the house had been discovered open at about a quarter to twelve one night, and several persons inside. In consideration of the irregularity having taken the magistrates refused to grant a renewal of the permission.