Page Updated:- Sunday, 21 November, 2021.



Notes of 1894



From the Woolwich Gazette, 16 February 1894.

Blackheath Petty sessions. Transfer of licences.

Lewisham. Confectioners shop, 4 Osborne Place, Blackheath, from Elisa Morley, administratrix of John Morley to Harold Shove, under the 14th section.

Several applications were adjourned for a month, the reason in nearly every case being non compliance with the rule which requires previous evidence of a yearly tenancy to be given to the clerk. In one instance, Mr. Pook, solicitor pleaded that the delay had been unavoidable and asked to have the transfer granted subject to the production of the agreement within 24-hours, but the Bench decided to uphold their rule.

The Adjourned cases were those of the "Princess Royal," St. Paul, Deptford; the "Crown," Lee; the "Fort," Woolwich; and the "Duke of Cambridge," Lewisham. The other transfers were granted.


Plans were submitted by Mr. Roberts on behalf of Mr. John Francis Taylor for alterations at the "Chichester Arms," St. Paul, Deptford; and by Messrs. Murray and Foster on behalf of Mr. William Peron for alterations at the "Gosterwood Hotel," in the same parish.

Both were sanctioned by the Bench.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 15 September 1894.


Thursday.— Before C. J. Plumtre Esq. (in the chair), F. Phillips, Esq., Lord Northbourne, A. N. Wollaston, Esq., and W. V. Lister, Esq.


Superintendent Kewell reported that in the Wingham Division the houses had been well conducted during the year. Eleven persons had been proceeded against and convicted for drunkenness and drunk and disorderly conduct, nine being males and two females; seven were fined and four sent to prison without the option of fines; two were residents and nine non residents. The number proceeded against showed a decrease of nine, as compared with last year.

Superintendent Wood reported that in the Home section of the Wingham Division there are 17 alehouses and 8 beerhouses. These had been well conducted during the past year. Only one person had been proceeded against and convicted for drunkenness in this part of the Division.

The Chairman announced that the whole of the licences would be renewed.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 31 August, 1894. 1d.


The annual Brewster Sessions of the Borough of Dover was held in the Court House. Town hall, on Monday at mid-day. The following magistrates were present:- Dr. Astley (in the chair), W. J. Adcock, M. Pepper, F. W. Prescott, G. Fry, C. W. Bagshaw, J. L. Bradley, A. Bottle, T. A. Terson, and G. R. Killick, Esqrs.


Dr. Astley, on the Magistrates taking their seats, announced that they had had under consideration the report of the Superintendent of Police, and it appeared that the licensed houses throughout the Borough had been most carefully and well conducted, though there were three or four exceptions which would be noticed.
The names of the public houses were then called, and the licensees were, except in the following cases renewed without remark.


The Chairman addressed the landlord, G. Blanche, said that they found that on the 11th of May, 1894, he had been fined 21s. and costs for keeping open his premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors at 11.40 p.m. He had been instructed to caution him that if any error occur again, in all probability they would take away his license. They would grant it on this occasion, but hoped that he would be extremely cautions as to the manner I which he conducted his house in the future.

Mr. Lance said that he should like to say that it was simply a private party, and no money passed, he was not aware of the law at the time, but he would see that it did not occur again.


It was stated that Mr. E. W. Knocker had an application for a provisional license in reference to this house, but the old license was renewed, the new application to come on later.


The chairman addressing Mr. Appleton, landlord of the “British Queen,” said that they found that on the 11th of June he had been fined 5 and 9s. 6d. costs for keeping open his premises at 12.55 p.m. It must have been a serious case for the Magistrates to impose such a heavy fine, but the license had not been endoesed, so that they would grant it this time, but he must be careful that there was not a mistake again.


The Chairman also cautioned Mr. Poffely, landlord of the above, who on the 16th of April was fined 20s. and 9s. 6d. costs for keeping the premises open at 11.45 p.m.


Mr. G. Saunders, landlord of the “Lord Wolseley,” who had been fined 40s. for keeping his premises open at 11.40 p.m., was also cautioned.


The license in the name of Mr. P. S. Court was transferred to Mr. Jas. R. Mann, registered Secretary of the Company.


It was announced that no application would be considered from the Liberties, except from Ringwould, but would be adjourned to the Broadstairs adjourned Sessions on September the 2nd.


Mr. M. Mowll applied for the license of the “Royal Standard” to be transferred from Hanson to Robert Watson.

Robert Watson said he resided at the “Royal Standard,” and had entered into an agreement with Messrs. Beer and Co. to hire the same.

Mr. G. Fry said that he passed by the place very frequently, and the house for several years had been conducted in a most disgraceful way. He did not like to say anything that would reflect on the Superintendent, but the scenes that had occurred outside the house tended to show it had not been looked after properly, and if it were conducted in the same way by the new tenant, he should feel it his duty next year to call attention to it.

Mr. M. Mowll said he was exceedingly sorry that the house had been so badly conducted, but there had been no charge before the Court, and he pointed out that it was a tramps' house, and therefore very difficult to manage.

A letter was read from the Chatham police, stating that the applicant had kept a common lodging house at Chatham, and his character was in every way satisfactory.

The application was granted.


This was an application for a provisional license. Mr. E. W. Knocker, who appeared for the applicant, Mrs. Dane, landlady of the “Red Lion,” said that it was nominally in her name, but actually made by Messrs. Leney and Co., who were about to pull the house down and re-build the premises, and also to include some adjoining cottage property. As the house was used as a common lodging house, the re-building and additions were very necessary.

The formal notices, &c., having been proved, the consideration of the application was adjourned until later in the day, when it was granted.


Mr. M. Mowll made an application for permission to sell beer at the Granville Hall on behalf of Mr. G. H. Mowll, a wine license being already in existence.

Mr. Hill, of Ramsgate, opposed this application on behalf of Mr. W. D. Adams. Mr. Hart, of Folkestone appeared to oppose on behalf of the Dover Licensed Victuallers. Mr. m. Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council, and Dr. Hardman, of Deal, on behalf of the owners of the “Shakespeare Hotel.”

Dr. Hardman raised a formal objection that the notices were not posted on the old parish church of St. James', but this was overruled.

Mr. G. H. Mowll said there was already a wine license attached to the premises. There was no beer engine in the premises, and it was not his intention to have one, and it was not his intention to sell draught beer, except bottle beer, on the premises. Witness was keeping the premises purely and simply as a restaurant.

By Mr. Hill: Witness has been occupier of the premises three weeks or a month. The premises opened out into public gardens, and people had a right to go into them if they wished.

Mr. Stilwell said that his impression was that there was no access into the public gardens under the lease of the premises to Mr. Mowll.

Mr. M. Mowll argued that it would be of benefit to the public, and that, with the exception of the Dover Temperance Council, whose position was quite intelligible, the remainder of the opposition was trade opposition, the worth of which the Bench would fully appreciate.

Mr. Hills, who spoke very strongly against the application, argued that there was not at present a single public house on the Sea Front, and as this application, not withstanding whatever promise was made now, amounted to that; for that reason they should refuse it. He pictured the objections that would arise if trippers and beanfeasters after dining there were to come out on the Sea Front or go into the Granville Gardens.

Mr. hart, of Folkestone, also spoke strongly on the question.

Mr. M. Bradley asked the Bench to recollect their declaration of three years ago, when they said that there were too many licenses in Dover and asked that steps should be taken to reduce the number. He pointed out that since then the “Grand Hotel” license had been granted, and although it had been promised that there should be no bar, there was one, and no one could say that the promise in respect to this application would also not be broken.

Dr. Hardman also spoke against the application.


Mr. Charles Lewis Adams applied for a license to sell bottled beers to be consumed off the premises for his branch established at Park Place. Mr. E. Carden supported the application, Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, appeared on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, and Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Temperance Council. The notices having been proved.

Mr. C. L. Adams entered the witness box and stated that he was the holder of a beer dealer's license in the same premises and he now applied for a license to sell bottled ale by retail, because a good many of his customers told him that it was too far to go to his establishment in Snargate Street. The district was a growing one and there was no regular wine merchant above the Market Square. His ground landlords the Commissioners of Woods and Forest had granted him permission to hold such a license as he was applying for. That permission, however, strictly prohibited him from selling beer on draught.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, the witness said that he was aware that there were the “Wheat Sheaf,” the “Park Inn,” and the “Sir John Falstaff” near, but he could not say whether bottled beer could be bought there as he proposed to sell it.

Mr. Hart, in addressing the Bench in opposition, on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, contended that the application was really for an ordinary license for the sale of beef off the premises. And there would be nothing to prevent him supplying it in jugs except the permit from the Woods and Forests, and that might be as easily varied as obtained.

Mr. Bradley, on behalf of the Temperance Council, strongly contended that there was no need for further facilities for obtaining alcoholic liquors in the district.


Mr. W. Curling applied for a license for selling beer to be consumed on the premises at the “Orange Tree,” Maxton. Mr. Hills, of Margate supported the application, and Mr. Bradley appeared on behalf of the Temperance Council.

Mr. Hills, in addressing the Bench, said that all the people in Maxton were in favour of this license being granted, and 90 had signed a memorial in favour of it.

Mr. Curling said he believed the license which he applied for was a necessity. 90 out of 113 householders signed in its favour. He obtained the signatures mostly himself. The nearest licensed house was half a mile away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: The “Hare and Hounds” was not half a mile away, but that was out of the Borough; that was about a quarter of a mile further on the Folkestone Road. His object in seeking the license was to offer the people of Maxton the means on enjoying themselves by spending an hour or two together in his house of an evening.

Mr. Major, a resident at Maxton, spoke strongly in favour of the license, and if the Bench did not grant it, they were not Englishmen.
Mr. Hill said he had been fee'd to address the bench, and asked the witness to detest from doing so.

Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley: Witness said that when a man went for his supper beer he wanted to wet his whistle, and if he drank out of the jug in going home, his wife would call it bad measure. He had been to the “Hare and Hounds.” It would take him twenty minutes to go there. He might go quicker if very thirsty. There had been a great increase of the population of Maxton. He should judge that they had increased three-fold from looking at the number of children about.

Mr. Bradley having addressed the Bench against the granting of the license, the Magistrates retired, and were absent a quarter of an hour.

When they returned, Dr. Astley said: the first license in the list is that for the enlargement of the “Red Lion.” That the Magistrates grant. The next application is that of Mr. G. H. Mowll to sell beer to be consumed on the premises at the “Granville Restaurant.” The Magistrates have decided to refuse it. The next is Mr. Charles Lewis Adam's application for a license to sell beer to be consumed off the premises at 5, Park Place. That the Magistrates grant. The next is Mr. W. Curling's application. A similar application had been before the Magistrates several times, and they still hold the same view and refuse it.


On the name of the “Grand Hotel” being called Alderman Adcock said that he reserved to himself the right of addressing the Bench on the subject of that license when it came up for consideration.

Mr. G. F. Fry said he hoped that the plans of the Hotel submitted to the Bench when the license was obtained would be produced, as he was under the impression that the bar had not been constructed in accordance with the plans.

The Chairman: No doubt the plans will be forthcoming.

Mr. Keeler the Secretary of the Hotel Company said that he should be happy to produce the plans, and they should show that Mr. Fry was entirely under a misapprehension.

Later Mr. M. Bradley expressed his opinion that the bar was not in accordance with the statement made on the application for the license.

After the new applications had been dealt with, Mr. F. Hills said that owing to the remarks that had been made on the Bench, he had been instructed to formally apply for the renewal of the “Grand Hotel” license, no notice of opposition having been given.

Mr. Adcock said he wished to make a few observations on the matter of the “Grand Hotel” license.

Mr. Hills asked if Mr. Adcock was addressing the bench as a Magistrate.

Mr. Adcock said he wished to address the Bench as a Magistrate. He said it was his good fortune three years ago to occupy the honourable position of mayor of Dover, and he occupied the position which Dr. Astley then so worthily filled. It would be in his recollection of all the Magistrates present that when the application for the “Grand Hotel” license was made, a witness on behalf of the Hotel went into the box and said that they did not intend to have a public bar to be used as a drinking bar, and that there would be no bar beyond a restaurant counter in the basement. The plans showing the proposed bar in the basement were put in as evidence and signed by him (Mr. Adcock) as Chairman. There was no mention of any bar except in the basement restaurant which was to measure 22 feet by 20 feet. The Magistrates granted the license on the assumption that there would be no public house bar. The arrangement had not been carried out according to those plans and the position of the bar was altogether different. What would have been the fate of the application had it been shown that the bar would be up a passage? He ventured to say the license never would have been granted. His complaint was that the plans which were submitted to the magistrates three years ago, when the application was made, had never been attempted to be carried out – in face they were ignored, and the bar instead of being in the basement was put up a passage. He fully recognised the good which the “Grand Hotel” had been to Dover, and he had no desire to hamper in any way the business of the “Grand Hotel,” therefore he did not mean to take any action on this occasion, but he wished to say if the bar were continued up the passage, steps would be taken next year and notice given that the renewal of the license would be opposed. He considered a bar up a passage would be one of the worst kind of bars. Many people who would be ashamed to go from the public street into a public house to drink, or down the steps in front of the hotel, but would go up that passage, and therefore it would be an encouragement to sly drinking. He had suggested that the renewal of the “Grand Hotel” license should be adjourned to Broadstairs in order that the facts might be ascertained, but he bowed to the opinion of his brother Magistrates in allowing the matter to stand over for another year, on the understanding that there would be an objection to the license if it were not in the meantime some alteration.

Mr. Hill said that no notice had been given of the opposition, but as there would be no opposition this year, he would reserve his remarks on that point.

Mr. J. L. Bradley also speaking from the Bench said that he quite agreed with the remarks of Mr. Alderman Adcock. It was quite understood when this license was granted that there was no bar except in the basement of the Hotel.

Mr. Hill said that if his instructions were correct, the alterations in the plans were submitted and sanctioned when the provisional license was confirmed.

Mr. Adcock: We did not know of any variation.

Mr. Vidler (the Clerk) said that it was stated that the bar issued of being in front would be at the side.

The proceedings then terminated.


Gravesend Reporter, North Kent and South Essex Advertiser, Saturday 1 September 1894.

The total number of houses licence in the borough for the sale of intoxicated drink to be consumed on the premises in the year 1893 were 89 public houses, and 38 houses total 127.

In 1894 there were 89 public houses and 37 beer houses total 126, which shows decrease of 1 beer house, though the forfeiture of the licence of the "Signal Tavern" as previously stated.

In addition to public houses and beer houses there were during the year 1893, 27 places of business licence to sell intoxicating liquor off the premises, but no application was made to the justice's last year for the renewal of the "Invicta Brewery Tap," and 43, Queen Street, which were previously off beer licences, therefore these licences have now dropped, thus reducing the off-licences by 2, but an application was made, and a licence granted to a brewery East Street, to sell off the premises (in bottles.)


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 15 September 1894.


Thursday. Before C. J. Plumtre, Esq. (in the chair), F. Philips, Esq., Lord Northbourne, A. N. Woolaston, Esq., and W. V. Lister, Esq.


Superintendent Kewell reported that in the Wingham Division the houses had been well conducted during the year. Eleven persons had been proceeded against and convicted for drunkenness and drunk and disorderly conduct, nine being males and two females; seven were fined and four sent to prison without the option of fines; two were residents and nine non-residents. The number proceeded against showed a decrease of nine, as compared with last year.

Superintendent Wood reported that in the Home section of the Wingham Division there are 17 ale-houses and 8 beer-houses. These had been well conducted during the past year. Only one person had been proceeded against and convicted for drunkenness in this part of the Division.

The Chairman announced that the whole of the licences would be renewed.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 15 September 1894.


Before Mr. Serjt. Spinks (Chairman), Colonel Tyler, Captain Hooper, and H. Hordern, Esq.


This was the annual licensing sessions for the Faversham petty sessional district.

Superintendent Capps presented his report as follows:- I most respectfully beg to submit to your Worships my second annual return of licensed houses in the Faversham petty sessional district, which comprises 25 parishes, in which are 43 ale houses, 15 on-licenses beer houses, and two licensed to sell wines and sweets. The population of the 25 parishes is 16,024, giving a ratio of one license to 258 of the inhabitants. The licenses houses have been generally well conducted, not one having been reported for infringing the Licensing Act during the past year. During the past year seven males have been proceeded against for drunkenness, and they were all convicted; six sere residents and one non-resident. This shows a decrease of 27 convictions as compared with last year’s return.

The Chairman, addressing the license holders, said it had been his custom, since he had been Chairman, to make a few observations on these occasions. In most years there had been some reason for his doing so, because there had been numerous Acts introduced affecting their interests. Sometimes Acts had been introduced and not passed, which also affected their interest, and one had then been disposed to make a remark or two, but nothing that year called for any specific remarks from him. He would, however, observe upon the report which they had heard read, and which they must feel was of a most highly satisfactory character - highly satisfactory to the public, to the magistrates, and to the license holders themselves, because it was a record one. The statement with regard to the drunkenness, of course, did not mean the whole of the drunkenness that had taken place in the district, but only those cases in which it had been necessary for the police to proceed against. When he found that in the district, which was a considerable one, only six residents had been proceeded against for drunkenness, and when he found there was a decrease of 27 convictions, he came to the conclusion that they were beginning in this neighbourhood to make a little step forward in the direction of sobriety. Under all the circumstances he had a peculiar gratification in complimenting all of them on their excellent conduct during the year, and treated that the one just commencing would be marked for them all with prosperity, health, and comfort of every description.
The old licenses were then renewed.

Mr. George Smith, farmer and grocer, South Street, Boughton, applied for a beer "off" certificate.

Mr. F. Johnson opposed the application on behalf of the landlords of the "Fox" and "King's Arms," neighbouring houses.

Mr. Smith explained that he had had the license previously for between 20 and 30 years, but when the firm he dealt with gave up he went to Mr. Neame, who told him he did not think it would be necessary for him to continue the license, as the brewing carts could deliver the beer.

Mr. Johnson said he opposed the application, not on any personal grounds, but because an additional licence was not needed to meet the requirements of the public in the neighbourhood. He pointed out that the inhabitants were well supplied with public houses. Mr. Smith's house was only a quarter of a mile from the "King's Arms," an eighth of a mile from seven houses in Boughton Street, and only a half mile from the "Sondes Arms," Selling. He said there was no reason why they should add to the drinking facilities in the neighbourhood, especially on account of the disagreeable scenes which took place in the district during the hop-picking. He added that the population of Boughton had increased only 75, and since the last census only two houses had been built. In support of his objection Mr. Johnson handed in a memorial, signed by 80 inhabitants.

Mr. Smith pointed out that his trade would only be a small cask trade, and would save him sending to the brewery every time he obtained an order.

The magistrates consulted, and decided unanimously to refuse the application.