Folkestone Express 11 July 1868.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

A special sessions for the transferring of licenses was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The following business was conducted:

John Fagg, of the Packet Boat, for transfer of license from John Boorn – Granted.

Note: Fagg is not listed in More Bastions, and it also lists Richard Boorn as being there in 1868.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License.

Packet Boat Inn – Robert Smith applied for transfer of license in this house. Granted.

Folkestone Express 29 May 1875.

Local News.

We have to record a lamentable accident at sea, resulting in the loss of the lives of two young fishermen, and of the boat in which they were sailing. It appears that on Thursday, William John Smith, son of Mr. William Smith, of the Steam Packet Inn (sic), Radnor Street, a fine young man of seventeen, was engaged in fishing for shellfish in his father's boat, accompanied by his cousin, John Bullen, of Deal, a somewhat younger lad. The lads were about three quarters of a mile from Dymchurch about 3 p.m., when some persons on the shore saw the little craft capsize under a sudden squall, and disappear. Three or four boats put off as quickly as possible from Dymchurch, but could find no trace either of the young fishermen or of their craft.

Folkestone Express 5 June 1875.

Inquest.

Last week we noticed the fatal accident which befell two young lads, the son and nephew of Mr. William Smith of the Steam Packet Inn (sic), who were drowned by the capsizing of a fishing boat off Dymchurch. The body of William Smith was recovered on the following day by Thomas Pegler, a fisherman living in East Street, in this town, who in hauling a whelk pot drew up the body, which had a cork fastened to the waist.

An inquest was held on the body at the Steam Packet Inn on Saturday evening before Mr. J. Minter, Coroner for the Borough, when the facts of the accident were stated by Thomas Winderberg, labourer, of Dymchurch. Deceased's father identified the body, and Pegler proved picking it up. The jury returned a verdict of Found Drowned.

The body of George Bullen, the other victim of this fatality, was picked up on Romney Sands on Thursday.

Folkestone Express 30 October 1875.

Inquest.

About 3.30 a.m. on Saturday morning last the people dwelling in the neighbourhood of Radnor Street were awakened from their slumber by hearing loud cries for help. It afterwards turned out that a man named Alfred Harper, who was lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, was taken with a fit of delirium tremens, and after striking and threatening to kill a friend who was sitting up with him, jumped out of a window about twelve feet from the ground, and ran and threw himself over the quay close to the border of the South Eastern Railway Company's workshop, into the harbour. The man, who was a good swimmer, appears to have lost all power, and was drowned.

The inquest was held at the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, the same evening at six o'clock, before the Coroner, J. Minter Esq. and a jury.

The first witness called was John Malin, who described himself as a labourer, living with the deceased at the Oddfellows Arms: I have known the deceased, whose name is Alfred Harper, about six years. I identify the body as that of Alfred Harper. He is about forty years of age, and by trade a tin and wire worker, late of 1, Portland Court, King Street, Ramsgate. He has been in Folkestone about fourteen days, and lodged at the Oddfellows Arms, where he continued to reside until this morning.

The deceased has not tasted a drop of intoxicating liquor since last Monday (the 18th), but previous to that he had been drinking very heavily. He has not been out of bed since last Monday night (the 18th) except to have it made by me.

I was sitting up with deceased last night (Friday 22nd). I sleep in the same room and in an adjoining bed to the deceased. After I had been in bed a short time I asked the deceased (who was very restless) if I should light a candle, and he replied “Yes, Jack, light a candle and come and sit by me”. I did as he requested me, and about half an hour after he jumped out of bed and began grasping at something he imagined he saw on the wall, and said “I have got 'em. They have tried to kill me ever so many times”. I at last persuaded him to go to bed again. He was not in his senses. About 3.30 a.m. he got up and said “You still watch me”, and struck me in the face with his fist. After that he asked me to go out of the room. There was no-one else with him. After I left the room I stood and held the door, and then I suppose he jumped out of the window into Radnor Street. The room was on the first floor about twelve feet from the ground. I left the house after I had been holding the door about three minutes to go and seek assistance. I think he must have jumped out of the window while I was going downstairs.

Robert Smith, landlord of the Packet Boat, said: About half past three on Saturday morning I heard someone calling for help. I jumped out of bed and looked out of the window and saw a man lying face down and stark naked under my window. While I was dressing I saw him get up and run and then jump over the quay into the harbour. The tide was not quite high at the time. I finished dressing as quickly as possible and ran to the quay and saw the deceased floating head down in the water near the landing steps. I ran down and got him part of the way out of the water and called for assistance. My wife called my lodgers and all four came. We then got him to the top of the steps and rolled him. We afterwards brought him into the room and rolled him for one hour but without any success. There was about seven feet of water when he jumped in.

J. Malin, re-called, said: Soon after deceased struck me he pulled off his shirt and said “It is no use spoiling good things”, and told me to keep it in remembrance of him. I then said “You are worth twenty dead men yet”. Deceased had said he thought he was dying.

Dr. Mercer, a surgeon practicing at Folkestone, said: Last Thursday I was sent for to see the deceased. He was suffering from a slight attack of Elrysepsias in the face. I could see by the symptoms he had been drinking. I prescribed for him and sent some medicine.

On Saturday morning about three or four o'clock I was called and told the man at the Oddfellows was suffering from delirium. I gave them an ascetic for him.

About five I was again called and saw the deceased. I recognised him as the man I had been attending. He was suffering from delirium tremens, and in my opinion his death was caused by drowning. I examined the body and found bruises on the skull, face, and chest, but there was no fracture of the skull.

After a short consultation the jury gave a verdict of “drowned while in a state of temporary insanity”.

Folkestone Express 18 December 1875.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon a man named William Whitnall, a smith, living in Queen Street, attempted to commit suicide by jumping from the East Pier into the harbour. He was observed by a boy, who gave the alarm, and the unfortunate man was rescued by two fishermen named Richard Taylor and William Milton. He was taken to the house of Mr. Robert Smith, Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. Though quite insensible, he rallied through the energetic efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and was able to be removed home. Though much better, he is still in a very feeble state. We understand that the unfortunate man, who has been in a lunatic asylum, has for some time past been in a desponding state.

Folkestone Express 7 July 1877.

Inquest.

On Thursday evening an inquest was held by the Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) at the Packet Boat public house, Radnor Street, on the body of Patrick Hickey, who came to his death by falling down the steps leading from East Street to Radnor Street.

Mr. Richard Mercer, a surgeon practicing in Folkestone, identified the body as that of Patrick Hickey, who was a pensioner and bath-chairman. On the previous evening about seven o'clock witness was called to the Packet Boat, where he found the deceased sitting in a chair in the parlour supported by Robert Smith, the landlord, and perfectly insensible. On examining the deceased's head he found a scalp wound about two inches in length and extending into the bone on the back towards the upper part. There was also a bruise on the left side of his forehead. The landlord told him that deceased had fallen from the back to the top of the steps leading from East Street into the yard of the Packet Boat. He was “a little fresh” at the time. Witness had the deceased removed to his house in East Street, where he lingered in a state of insensibility till eleven o'clock when he died. The cause of death was concussion of the brain and a fusion of blood on the brain, the effects of a fall.

Isabella Wilson, the wife of James Wilson, a labourer living in East Street, Folkestone, deposed that on the previous evening, between six and seven o'clock, she saw the deceased come out of his house in East Street and go to the top of the steps leading into the Packet Boat yard. He was proceeding to go down the steps when he missed the first step and fell. She saw someone go to his assistance, and as she was afraid, she left the spot and did not see any more of deceased. She saw the deceased in the afternoon and she then thought he had been drinking.

Hannah Harris, the wife of a fisherman living in East Street, nearly opposite the steps leading to the Packet Boat Inn, stated that she was standing at the door of her house about half past six o'clock on the previous evening, when she saw deceased come out of his house and walk towards the steps. He seemed to stagger a little, but she could not say whether it was from drink or from his being tired. She knew that he had had a long walk to Hythe. Just as she was going into her house she heard the deceased fall, and she ran to the steps and went down. She found him lying at the bottom on his back and she lifted him up. He was bleeding very much from the back of the head and was quite insensible. With the assistance of two of Mrs. Smith's lodgers he was carried into the tap room of the Packet Boat, and a doctor was at once sent for.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental Death”.

Folkestone Express 13 August 1892.

Saturday, August 6th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Mary Ann Smith was charged with having knowingly in her house 2¼ lbs. of cigars, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt, Customs Officer, said he caused Mrs. Smith's house to be searched, and in a chest of drawers they found 2¼ lbs. of cigars which had not paid duty.

Charles S. Jones said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of Exchequer, and searched the house, and found seven boxes of cigars in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2¼ lbs.

Mr. Bradley asked what there was to distinguish the cigars.

Witness said they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof laid with the defendant. He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and then that it was her son's room. The son is a second engineer on board one of the steamers.

The single value and duty was said to be £1 13s. 9d.

Defendant said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over the house, and those cigars were found in her son's room. Her son had his own room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had been keeping them a long time to get dry.

Mr. Bradley said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.

Mr. Bradley asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.

The officer said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar without paying duty.

Mr. Bradley said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.

The Bench said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and dismissed it.

Mr. Bradley asked: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.

What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not allowed to remain and be summoned? It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.

Mr. Boykett: Very harsh.

Supt. Taylor said she was only in custody ten minutes.

Mr. Bradley: The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven's sake, was she arrested on the trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town,, and well known, taken into custody. She was not going to run away.

The Chairman: It was very harsh.

Supt. Taylor: What is to be done with the cigars?

Mr. Rolt: We keep those on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Holden: Have the Bench no power over it?

Mr. Bradley: No, sir.

Folkestone Express 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Smith was summoned for being concerned in harbouring uncustomed goods – 2 lb. 4 oz. of foreign cigars. The defendant is the son of Mrs. Smith, who was on the previous Saturday charged with a similar offence and dismissed.

Mr. Minter appeared for the Customs authorities. He said at the outset that attention had been called to the remarks that were made at the hearing of the charge against Mrs. Smith by the Clerk to the Magistrates, when the officers were out of Court searching for a witness in another case which was coming before the Bench. The consequence was they had no opportunity of answering the remark, but he was quite sure the Bench would allow him to make an explanation. He read the report of the proceedings which appeared in this journal, and then said he must take exception to the observations made by the Clerk to the Magistrates that it was a trumpery charge. It was a very serious charge if it had been proved, but the Bench did not feel that it was proved, and the Customs at once submitted to their judgement. At the same time it was a very serious charge, and not a trumpery one. The Customs had two ways of dealing with it, either by bringing the parties at once before the Magistrates, or by issuing a summons. He thought it almost went without saying that the Customs, in the discharge of their duties, never wished to act in a harsh manner, and under the exceptional circumstances which he was going to tell them, they would see there was no pretence for saying there was any hardship, and that what was done was to accommodate the lady herself. He rather wondered she did not state what actually took place. When the officers found those cigars, to which a young fellow, a son of Mrs. Smith, had pleaded guilty to having in his bedroom in his mother's house, it was the imperative duty of the Customs officers to charge someone with the offence with which they, in the first instance, charged Mrs. Smith – that of harbouring those cigars on her premises. They would have been guilty of neglect of duty if they had not directed proceedings to have the matter enquired into. The lady was in a very hysterical condition when the things were found. He did not wish to trouble the Bench with her observations. It was for her to show she did not know they were there. The officer explained to her what must be done. If he had been her own son he could not have acted in a kinder manner. He explained to her what he should have to do. He did what Mr. Bradley said he should have done. He told her he would have to issue a summons against her and she would have to appear before the Magistrates. Her reply was “Can't you get rid of this matter without that? Can't you have it settled at once?” The officer as kindly as possible said the only way in which she could have it settled was by technically submitting to an arrest, by going to the police station, and signing a police bond to appear on the morrow. She said she would rather do that than wait for a summons. The lady walked up to the police station herself – not in custody – technically in custody if they liked, and waited till the officer and the Superintendent of Police came up. She signed the bail bond and walked home, and was much obliged to the officers for having done what they could in order that the charge might be disposed of next day. Then, when it came on the next morning, somehow or other, it got into the mind of Mr. Bradley, that she had been there and then arrested and dragged up through the streets. The officers would have been perfectly justified in doing it. They intended to summon her in the ordinary way. He thought after that explanation they would say nobody had been guilty of harsh or unfeeling conduct. The officers, on the other hand, did everything they could for the lady in order to facilitate the hearing.

Alderman Sherwood: Then there is an end of it.

Alderman Pledge: Just consider for a moment. This lady, in giving evidence, said she had no idea they were there. They were in her son's bedroom, and she knew nothing about them.

Mr. Minter: And you believed her and dismissed the case. We don't complain. E say that the officers searching and seizing these contraband goods, it was their duty to summon everybody in the house in order that the Magistrates should have judicial knowledge of it.

The Magistrates then proceeded to discuss the matter.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed not to press harshly, but there was the Act, under which the Bench must adjudicate, and which decided what the defendant must pay. As he had said before, the game was not worth the candle.

Mr. Rolt, the Customs officer, said the single value and duty was £1 13s. 9d.

Mr. Minter said there was some difference between himself and the Magistrates' Clerk as to what fines were payable. He contended that the single value and duty should be trebled. Their Clerk did not agree with him; he said the value should be trebled, and single duty.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the question would hardly arise in that case. It was the first offence, and they would hardly press for a heavy penalty.

Mr. Minter said he was not pressing, but there was the penalty under the Act.

The Magistrates' Clerk read the Section, from which it appeared that the Magistrates had discretion, where the amount of value was under £20, to inflict not less than single value and duty.

Defendant said he had the cigars entirely for his own use, and he thought he was doing no harm.

Mr. Minter asked for costs, and for his own costs for appearing.

The Magistrates' Clerk said it appeared that his object in appearing was mainly to make an explanation.

The Bench imposed a penalty of £1 13s. 9d. single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 9 September 1899.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

An application was made on behalf of Albert Newman for authority to sell at the Packet Boat Inn. Granted.

Folkestone Express 12 May 1900.

Monday, May 7th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Thomas George Harvey was charged with being drunk and disorderly and with assaulting the police. He pleaded Guilty to the former, but to the latter he pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sharp said about 7.50 on Sunday evening he was called to eject the prisoner from the Packet Boat public house. He did so, and prisoner went on to The Stade and shouted out most obscene language. Prisoner answered, when told to go away, “I shall go when I am ready”, and added “I will tear your ---- face to pieces”, and put himself in a fighting attitude. He was taken into custody, when he kicked witness on he right leg, and became most violent, and it was necessary to handcuff him, and with the assistance of two other constables he was taken to the police station.

Henry T. Newman, the landlord of the Packet Boat public house, stated that prisoner went into his house about 7.45 p.m. and used most filthy and disgusting language. He was ordered to leave, and began to swear at the customers. A constable was sent for, and a constable came and ejected him.

In answer to Alderman Banks, witness said he served the prisoner no beer.

P.C. Earl corroborated the first witness's evidence.

Supt. Reeve asked the Bench to take into consideration the fact that he was using most obscene language on a Sunday night.

The prisoner said if they let him off he would become a teetotaller.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, with the alternative of seven days' hard labour for being drunk and disorderly, and for assaulting the police constable he was sentenced to fourteen days' without the option of a fine.

Prisoner said when leaving the Court, “Thank you, I shan't forget it either”.

Folkestone Express 3 January 1903.

Wednesday, December 31st: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Vaughan, Penfold and Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Thomas Davis and John Banks Pegden were charged with stealing two rabbits.

Percy Potten, a carter, said his stables were in Dover Road, near the railway bridge. In the stables he kept seven rabbits. On Sunday, about 6.30, he fed them, and locked the place up. On Monday he returned about 5.15 a.m. and found two of the hutches open. He gave information to the police, and on the previous evening he went with his employer to the Packet Boat public house, where he saw prisoners. The prisoner Davis had previously been in the lodge. The rabbits were valued at £1.

Detective Burniston said about eight p.m. the previous evening he was with P.C. Bourne in Fenchurch Street, when they saw prisoner carrying a basket containing two rabbits, partly covered with a piece of paper. Witness followed prisoner into Radnor Street, and saw them go into the Packet Boat public house. Witness and P.C. Bourne followed. Witness said to Davis “Are they your rabbits?” He replied “Yes”. Witness asked where he got them, and he said “I bought them off a man last Sunday night in Dover Road”. Witness said he was not satisfied with the statement, and they would be detained. Pegden said “I lodge with Davis. I do not know where he got the rabbits. I helped him carry them down tonight”. The rabbits were identified by their owner. Witness charged the prisoners, and Pegden said “I know nothing about them”.

The Superintendent said if the Bench were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out he would ask them to commit prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The Bench, however, dealt with the case summarily, and sentenced Davis to two months' hard labour.

As there was not sufficient evidence against Pegden, he was discharged with a caution.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench approved of plans for alterations at the Packet Boat Inn.

Folkestone Express 21 October 1905.

Monday, October 16th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Sarah Dicks, a young woman, was charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass in the door of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Saturday night. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Thomas Daniel Goldsmith, licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, said on Saturday night, about a quarter past eleven, the prisoner knocked at the door of the bar and enquired for a man named Harry Webb. Witness told her he did not know such a man and she had better go away. She replied if he did not let her into the house she would smash the windows. About two minutes later he saw her come towards the door and smash one of the plate glass panels with her boot. Witness detained her until the arrival of a constable, when he gave her into custody. Prisoner had evidently mistaken his place for the Star Inn. He estimated the damage at £2 15s.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and she was ordered to pay the amount of the damage (£2 15s.), and 10s. fine, including costs. In default of payment she went to prison for one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 4 November 1905.

Wednesday, November 1st: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

James Robert Featherbe, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police the previous night, on The Stade. Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, but not to the assault.

P.C. Minter said the previous night at twenty minutes past eight he was called to the Packet Boat Inn. He there saw the prisoner drunk, who refused to go out when requested by the landlord and himself. Witness therefore had to use force to eject him. When he got outside, prisoner used very bad language, which was not fit for anyone to hear. Witness then took him into custody, but he became so violent that he had to obtain the assistance of P.C. Smith. Prisoner kicked that officer, and also knocked witness's helmet off into the road. All the way to the police station there was a howling mob round them trying to agitate the prisoner and also urging others to go for them.

Prisoner alleged that the officers kicked him, but that witness denied.

P.C. Smith said he saw the prisoner being ejected out of the public house by the last witness, and he also assisted him to take Featherbe to the police station. Prisoner became very violent, and kicked witness on the shin, which was bruised and very painful. They found it necessary to handcuff the prisoner, and remove his boots in order to get him to the police station.

Prisoner said when the constables kicked him, he thought it was pretty near time he kicked them.

The Chairman: If you had gone quietly, there would have been no kicking at all.

Frederick Featherbe said the constables turned the prisoner all manners of ways. They were not men at all to treat him the way they did. Witness asked the officers if he could lend them a hand, but they replied that they did not want any of his help. It was cruel to see how they served him. It was a good job he had not had a “drop” or else he would have been on top of them.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour, and for the assault, 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

A nephew of the prisoner, Frederick Featherbe, was then placed in the dock on a charge of resisting the police while in the execution of their duty the previous night. Prisoner said he was Not Guilty.

P.C. Minter said when they were half way up the High Street with the last prisoner, Featherbe came up and got hold of the prisoner by the back and eventually tore the scarf from round his throat. He shouted to the man in custody “Poke it up them, Bob. Stick to it. I will help you”. When further assistance came, P.C. Smith arrested the prisoner, who was sober.

P.C. Smith corroborated.

Prisoner called two witnesses, named John Alfred Cooke and William Weller, both of whom stated that the prisoner only picked his uncle's scarf up, and he did not catch hold of him in any way.

The Chairman said the prisoner was charged with a very serious offence, and he should have assisted them instead of resisting the police. He would be fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

An application was made for a slight alteration in respect of the Packet Boat Inn was adjourned until the annual licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Superintendent's Report.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen's Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen's Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates' certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

From the Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The "Railway Tavern," the "Eagle Tavern" and the "Bricklayers Arms" on the ground of redundancy, the "Railway Hotel," Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the "Packet Boat," so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

The Packet Boat.

At the annual licensing meeting the licence of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, held by Mr. Goldsmith, was referred to the adjourned sessions on account of plans being prepared for structural alterations. Mr. Martin Mowll, on behalf of the owner, said he appeared to ask the Justices to approve of plans for certain alterations to improve the premises. He believed there was one question in respect to that house, and that was the doorway leading into the yard of an old cottage, the entrance being from the street at the back. The doorway seemed to have been in existence a good many years. His clients undertook to have it blocked up, so that no communication could take place between the occupier of the cottage and the public house.

The Chairman said the Justices did not agree to the plans because they did not like the two windows in East Street. Mr. Herbert and himself had been down there, and the tenant told them he would be satisfied with skylights.

Mr. Mowll said the windows could be fixed so that they would never be opened. The Chief Constable had told him that he would have no objection to that.

The Chairman, after consulting with the other Magistrates, said they would agree to the plans providing the two things referred to were done.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1909.

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer.

Harry Johnson was charged on remand with stealing 3½ dozen mechanical toys, the property of Jules Freeman.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had an additional witness to call to complete the case. A further charge would be preferred against Johnson.

The evidence given at the previous hearing of the case was read over.

Richard John May, a fisherman, of 34, Radnor Street, said on August 16th he was in the private bar of the Ship Inn, at half past two, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had a teddy bear top with him. It was in a box. The prisoner asked him if he would buy it for twopence, and witness bought it for that amount. As soon as he got it he tried it, but found it was broken. Later in the day he took the top to the police station and handed it to P.S. Sharpe.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton, a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace, said he had charge of the tennis courts and pavilion of Bayham House School, on the Plain. In the pavilion, which was locked, there were two pairs of tennis shoes. On Friday evening, the 13th, the pavilion was secure, and on August 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion. The door was swinging home, and the lock, which had been forced, was lying inside on the floor. Two pairs of tennis shoes were missing, and he gave information to the police. A day or two afterwards he went to the police station, where he was shown the two pairs of tennis shoes produced, which he identified as those left in the pavilion, and the property of Miss Irene de Tiere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

William Featherbe, a ship's carpenter, of 12, Warren Road, said on August 16th he was in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, at about half past eight, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had the two pairs of shoes with him and offered them for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for one pair, and witness asked him if they were his property. He said that everything was fair and above board, and witness gave him 2s. 6d. for one pair. The next day he handed the shoes to the police.

Emily Minter, the wife of Albert Minter, the landlord of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on August 16th the prisoner came into the bar, and had the pair of shoes produced with him. He asked her if she would buy them, but she said she would not, as they were too large for her. She asked him if they were his property, and he said they were. She eventually bought them for 2s. 6d. The next day she gave the shoes to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said at five o'clock on August 16th, from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by the witness Freeman, who said “I wish to give this man into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy near toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street”. Witness took him into custody, when he became very violent. He had ten teddy bear toys in his possession. He was afterwards charged with stealing the three and a half dozen toys, and he replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the same day he received information about the two pairs of shoes having been stolen. He made enquiries, and at 8.30 a.m. on the 17th he went to the Lord Nelson, where he saw Mrs. Minter, who handed him the shoes produced. Later in the day Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes. That morning witness charged prisoner with stealing the shoes, valued at £1.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and attributed his thefts to drink. If they would give him a chance he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had been convicted in different parts of the country. There were eight convictions altogether against him, ranging from twenty one days to twelve months.

The Magistrates sentenced the prisoner to three months' hard labour in each case, the sentences to run consecutively.

Mrs. Minter and the witness Featherbe were admonished by the Chairman for purchasing the goods, and were told that they ought to be ashamed of encouraging thefts by purchasing the articles.

Folkestone Express 8 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 5th: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred from Mr. Goldsmith to Mr. Deverson.

Folkestone Express 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: Packet Boat, Radnor Street, from Mr. T. Goldsmith to Mr. Deverson.

Folkestone Express 19 August 1911.

Tuesday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick Hawkins and Martha Pharaoh were charged with using obscene language the previous evening in Radnor Street. They pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Watson said at 9.45 p.m., in consequence of complaints he received, he went to Radnor Street. There he saw the prisoners outside the Packet Boat Inn in a fighting attitude. They were making use of disgusting language and caused a crowd to assemble. He then took them into custody, with the assistance of P.C. Fox.

Hawkins said they had had an extra drop of drink, and they commenced to argue over nothing. They were going to leave the town if the Magistrates gave them a chance. They promised it should not occur again. That was the first time they had been in trouble of that kind.

The Chief Constable said the prisoners were two “visitors” staying at the Radnor lodging house.

The Mayor said Hawkins would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' in default. They understood that Pharaoh had a little girl aged three years, and on that account she would be discharged.

Folkestone Express 14 October 1911.

Local News.

A case of interest to publicans came before the Magistrates at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday morning when Maurice Francis Deverson, landlord of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling beer during prohibited hours. The Magistrates were W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, solicitor, appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

At the request of the Magistrates, the witnesses on both sides left the court.

Inspector Lawrence said at twenty three minutes past eleven on Wednesday night, the 4th October, he was in Radnor Street in company with P.C. Kettle, when he saw two men enter the front door of the Packet Boat Inn, which was kept by the defendant. Witness and Kettle at once went to the house, and they saw that the lights were full on in the front bar. On looking through the window, witness saw defendant behind the bar, while three fishermen were standing in the bar. Defendant served each of the men with a pint, evidently of beer. One of the men, who afterwards gave the name of William Taylor, laid a coin on the counter, and defendant took it and handed back Taylor some change. Witness then tried the front door, and found it was locked. Defendant opened it, and witness and Kettle walked in. Witness pointed to the three men and the three glasses on the counter, which he observed contained beer, and asked what was the meaning of it. Defendant said the men had just come in from sea. Witness replied “You know they have no right here”. Defendant said witness had made a mistake. They were allowed to come in after they had been to sea. Witness went to the men and asked them their names, which they gave as follows:- William Tayloy, 25, Claremont Road, Brighton; Charles Barnard, 26, George Street, Brighton; and John Taylor, 33, Grosvenor Street, Brighton. They said they were fishermen on the Bonny Kate, 60SM, a Brighton boat. While taking their names the defendant said “Don't be afraid; they have not got a leg to stand on. The super knows all about it”. Witness told defendant that he should report him for keeping his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. Defendant said he knew what witness was going to do directly he came into the bar. The fishermen had always been allowed to come in there when they had come back from sea. The sea was no-man's land. Witness told the three men that they would be reported for being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours. William Taylor, in defendant's presence, said they had been to sea since ten o'clock the previous morning and had always come there when they used the harbour. Witness said they had been trading in the harbour for some time now. Taylor replied “Yes, two or three weeks”. The men then drank up their beer and left. Kettle and witness followed them and they then went into the Fish Market.

Mr. Mowll: When you went into the house on Wednesday evening had you any reason to doubt that the three fishermen had then just returned from sea? – I believe they had.

By the Clerk: He saw two men enter by the front door of the house. When he got to the window he saw three men.

P.C. Kettle corroborated. He added that the boat had been at Folkestone a fortnight previous to the night of the 4th.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Magistrates. He said the Magistrates had already got the evidence of the prosecution to show that those three men were Brighton fishermen, who had, in fact, as the Inspector himself believed, just returned from sea. And those three men said at the time, and there had been no evidence to contradict it, that they went to sea at ten o'clock on the Tuesday morning, and did not return until eleven o'clock on Wednesday evening. On returning from sea, they went straight to the Packet Boat, a public house which they always used when they were in Folkestone. On those facts there was quite sufficient evidence before them to justify them in dismissing the case, and they could pretty well see from the evidence of the prosecution what was the line of the defence. It was that those men were what the law called bona-fide travellers. The mere fact of their being at sea would not make them bona fide travellers, because they might have been at sea within three miles of the Packet Boat Inn. That they were travellers in fact, there could not be the slightest doubt. They went out on the Tuesday morning to the Varne, and they did not return until eleven o'clock on the Wednesday night. And if the facts were as he was going to submit them to the Magistrates, he thought they would have very little doubt in coming to the conclusion that those men were bona fide travellers.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he was the licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. A good many fishermen used the house. When he went into the house twelve months ago the two men, Taylor and Williams, were in there, and he knew them as Brighton fishermen. He had not seen anything of them since until the present mackerel season. About ten o'clock on the Tuesday morning he saw the Bonny Kate go out to sea, and he knew the crew were going out to the Varne. He did not see anything of the three men until Wednesday evening after eleven o'clock. He closed his house at eleven o'clock. When the men came to the door he asked them whether they had just come back from sea, and they said “Yes”. They wore their oilskins. He believed they had just returned from the Varne, and he served them with beer. He would not have done so if he had not believed they were bona fide travellers.

By the Chief Constable: The men had their meals on the boat. They said they had been to sea since ten o'clock the previous morning, and he believed it.

William Taylor, 25, Claremont Road, Brighton, said he was the skipper of the fishing lugger Bonny Kate. On Tuesday, 3rd October, he left Folkestone harbour at ten o'clock in the morning and went to the Varne lightship to catch mackerel. He and the crew left the Varne at 9.30 in the evening. The wind was W.N.W. – a contrary wind – and they got off Folkestone at 1.30 on Wednesday morning. They then anchored in the roads, about a mile or a mile and a half from shore. They put the fish into a ferry punt and sent them ashore. The men and two boys left at a quarter to seven and they brought back some food. They then went towards the Varne again, and left about a quarter to ten in the evening. The wind was more favourable and they got back to Folkestone at eleven o'clock. They came into the harbour, made fast to a jetty, and then went into the Packet Boat for a drink. From the time witness went out to sea on Tuesday morning until he went into the public house after eleven o'clock on Wednesday evening he had not been ashore.

The Chairman: I suppose the remaining witnesses will only prove exactly the same as this man.

Mr. Mowll: On the same lines.

No further evidence was given, and the Chairman said the Magistrates were unanimously of the opinion that those men were not in the strict sense of the term bona fide travellers. At the same time, they were satisfied that the defendant used his best endeavours to find out whether they were or not, and that he fully believed they were. The police were perfectly justified in bringing the case, which would be dismissed.

Folkestone Express 23 December 1911.

Tuesday, December 19th: Before Alderman Vaughan and R.G. Wood Esq.

The licence of the Packet Boat Inn was temporarily transferred from Mr. Deverson to Mr. A. Goodall.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1912.

Local News.

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Mr. Deverson to Mr. Goodall. Temporary authority was granted on December 19th.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 16 March 1912.

Friday, March 8th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Ellen Smart, a licensed pedlar, was charged with being drunk in Radnor Street the previous evening. She admitted the offence.

P.C. Waters said at 9.40 the previous evening he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, ejected from the Packet Boat public house. She became very excited, and commenced shouting at the top of her voice. He advised her to go away, but she refused to do so. As she did not do as requested, and continued to make herself a nuisance, he took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry, but she had not been used to take strong drink.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was a stranger to them.

Prisoner's husband said they had only been in the town two days.

The Magistrates discharged the woman on promising to leave the town.

Folkestone Express 15 June 1912.

Monday, June 10th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W. Harrison, W.C. Young, and A. Stace Esqs.

Francis John Maidment was charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday night.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was arrested on Saturday night on a charge of being drunk and incapable, but as a result of enquiries subsequently maden he was charged with stealing a new canvas sunblind, the property of some person unknown. He, therefore, should like to withdraw the charge of drunkenness and proceed with the charge against the prisoner of stealing the sunblind.

The Magistrates gave permission for the charge of drunkenness to be withdrawn, and the charge of stealing to be preferred against Maidment.

Charles Petley, a labourer, living on board a boat in the harbour, said on Saturday night, about nine o'clock, he was in the Packet Boat public house, when he saw the prisoner. The sunblind (produced) was close to his feet, and he asked witness if he would give him half a crown for it. He said to prisoner “Have you stole it?”, and prisoner replied “No”. He asked him if he was sure about it, and he said “Yes”. He eventually gave him 2s. 6d. for it, and he took the bundle down on board the boat to see what it was. He found it was a new cloth. That made him suspicious, and he came on shore again and saw Inspector Lawrence, who came and looked at the canvas. He later accompanied the Inspector to Radnor Street, where they saw the prisoner sitting on the pavement. The police eventually took possession of the canvas.

Inspector Lawrence said at ten o'clock on Saturday night he was in Harbour Street, when the last witness went to him, and from what he said P.C. Butcher and he accompanied Petley to the boat where he lived. Petley showed him the canvas produced, and he found it was a sunblind. He accompanied him (witness) into Radnor Street, where he pointed out the prisoner sitting on the pavement. He found Maidment was helplessly drunk, so he brought him to the police station. P.C. Butcher took possession of the blind and brought it to the police station. After making enquiries on Sunday morning he showed prisoner the sunblind, and said to him “This blind was sold by you to a man named Petley for 2s. 6d. in the Packet Boat yesterday, and I shall now charge you with stealing it from some person or persons unknown”. He then cautioned him, and he replied “I have no recollection about it at all”. The sunblind was valued at from 45s. to 50s.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that day, and he asked for a remand so that further enquiries could be made.

The prisoner was remanded until next Tuesday.

Folkestone Express 22 June 1912.

Tuesday, June 18th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, A. Stace and W.C. Young Esqs.

Francis John Maidment was brought up on remand charged with stealing a sunblind.

The Chief Constable said a week ago the prisoner was before the Magistrates charged with stealing a sunblind, the property of some person unknown. They had since ascertained that it belonged to Messrs. Upton. There was one additional witness to be called, and after his evidence he should ask them, if they were satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, to commit him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Charles Rowe, of 37, Warwick Road, said he was in the employ of Messrs. Upton Bros., in Sandgate Road. The sunblind produced was the property of his employers, it having been specially made. On Friday, June 7th, he removed the blind, together with another one, at about 11 a.m. from off a case in a lodge in the backyard, and placed them on a dinner wagon. Both blinds were new, only having been used six times. The value of the blind was 45s. He missed the blind on Monday, the 10th, at nine o'clock. He made enquiries and reported the loss to the manager. Afterwards a constable came to the shop, and he (witness) later went to the police station and identified it. The yard opened into Alexandra Gardens, and the doors were opened at half past eight in the morning and remained so until eight o'clock in the evening.

Prisoner said he knew nothing about it.

The Magistrates thereupon committed him for trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail being offered him in £10 and one surety of £10.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, 69, a labourer, was charged with stealing a canvas sunblind, of the value of £2 5s., the property of Messrs. Upton Bros., Sandgate Road, on June 8th. He was also charged with receiving it, well-knowing it to have been stolen. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Charles Rowe, 31, Foord Road, said he was employed by the prosecutors as porter. On the 7th June he moved the sunblind produced from one side of the shed at the rear of the premises to the other, putting it on a dinner wagon. On the 10th he missed it, and he was later shown it at the police station. It had been used six times.

Charles Tyrell Petley, a labourer, said he lived on a boat in the harbour. On June 8th he was in the Packet Boat public house, when the prisoner came in with what he thought was a piece of canvas. He bought it from him for 2s. 6d., but when he got on board he found it was a sunblind. He therefore brought it ashore, handed it over to the police, and gave information to them. Later he pointed out the prisoner to Inspector Lawrence.

Inspector Lawrence said Petley pointed out the prisoner to him in Radnor Street. He helped the prisoner to his feet, as he was sitting on the pavement, and he found he was helplessly drunk. He took him to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and incapable. On the following morning he charged prisoner with stealing the sunblind, and he replied “I have no recollection about it at all”.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

P.C. Clay, of the Metropolitan Police, stated that he was present at the West Kent Sessions at Maidstone, on April 8th, 1904, when the prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for stealing a garden hose and other articles, in the name of John Davis. There were seven other previous convictions against him at that time, including 18 monts' hard labour at Surrey Sessions for housebreaking. All the convictions were for theft.

The Chief Constable said on November 29th, 1906, the prisoner was sentenced to three months' at Aldershot for failing to report himself as a convict on licence.

Prisoner said he had been trying to get an honest living during the last six years, selling matches, laces, oranges, or anything. When he got the sentence for failing to report himself he told the police he had lost his papers and he gave himself up.

The Recorder said he had been considering whether he should send him to penal servitude. His first inclination was to do so. It seemed to him it was no use them allowing such a wastrel to wander about seeking what he could get hold of. His fellow justices seemed to have a more lenient view of the matter. Having regard to the fact that he had not been in trouble for six years, and that he was 69 years of age, he did not propose to send him to penal servitude. The sentence he passed upon him was that he be imprisoned for twelve calendar months with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 July 1915.

Local News.

Amy Partridge Marsh, of Tulse Hill, London, who was charged at the Police Court before Mr. J. Stainer and other Magistrates on Saturday morning with attempting to commit suicide, said strange things to Mr. Harry Edward Stokes, who took her from the sea, into which she had cast herself.

Mr. Stokes, who is a plumber in the employ of the South Eastern and Chatham, was at work in the Company's shops when two lads came and said that a woman had thrown herself into the water. He went to the door and saw someone in the sea. Then he made his way to the rocks, a matter of 100 yards away, and, on getting nearer to the woman (the accused), she struggled to get on to the dry rocks. Taking her by the arm he asked what she was doing, and she said she was trying to commit suicide, and that she had killed her father. Mr. Stikes said “Don't talk like that, Madam”, and began to take her towards the Company's shops. On the way she remarked “I have left my father on his death-bed”. Subsequently he took her to the Packet Boat Inn, and, as she asked for a policeman to be sent for, he went to the police station and gave information of the occurrence.

To the Packet Boat Inn then came Inspector Lawrence, who found the accused sitting before a fire in the kitchen. He cautioned her, and she said “I am not fit to live. I left my father, who is dying, in London. I had nourishment in the house to give him, and I have not done so”. At the police station she said “This is all through neglecting my father”.

The Bench bound the woman over, and handed her over to the care of her friends. They highly commended Mr. Stokes for his action in the matter.

Folkestone Express 7 September 1918.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday the licence of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Goodhall to Mr. F. Kennett, a dairyman, of Coolinge Lane.

Folkestone Express 5 February 1921.

Local News.

On Tuesday morning at the Police Court the following temporary transfer was granted: the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, to Mr. J.W. Twigg, Ramsgate.

Folkestone Express 18 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Friday the licence of the East Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, licensee of the Packet Boat in Radnor Street, of which he has held the licence for six years.

The Clerk said steps were being taken immediately to find a tenant of the Packet Boat.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions in both cases.

Folkestone Express 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr .G. I. Swoffer and other magistrates, the following licence was transferred: East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. Martin Grey Price to Mr. John W. Twigg.

Folkestone Express 2 July 1927.

Local News.

Tuesday, June 28th: Before Alderman C. E. Mumford, Miss A. M. Hunt and Dr. W. W. Nuttall.

George Slenderman Weatherhead was summoned for having, on the 10th June, stolen two notes of the Bank of England, of the value of £5 each, the property of Frederick John Wilkinson.

Frederick John Wilkinson, The Avenue, Littlestone-on-Sea, fruiterer and greengrocer, said on the 10th June he came to Folkestone for produce, to the early morning market, arriving about 6.30 to 7 a.m. At the time he had two Bank of England £5 notes, three £1 Treasury notes, and a cheque for £5. He had the money in an envelope. About ten minutes after he arrived at the market he took the envelope from his breast pocket, when he was standing near Mr. Bean's lorry, to take a £1 note to give to the defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant was on the spot, and had previously helped him to load his lorry. He returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned him the change of 8s. He completed his business, jumped on Mr. Bean's lorry to pay him for his purchases, and again withdrew the envelope from his pocket and took the contents, and found only two £1 Treasury notes and the cheque. The two £5 notes were not there. He told Mr. Bean he had lost the notes, and Weatherhead was in the immediate vicinity of the lorry, about ten or twelve yards away. When he found he had lost the notes he told Bean he had lost them, and it would be audible to anyone standing round. They both made a search, but could not find them. He said nothing to defendant about his loss. On returning home he found he had not left the notes there, and he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn’t he tell me that he had lost the notes?

Mr. Wilkinson: Because I was not sure that I had lost them then.

Defendant: I wouldn’t rob any man.

William John McEwitt, barman at the Jubilee public house, said defendant went into the bar, and tendered him a £5 note for drinks. He called for a round of drinks for customers in the bar, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a £5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in crossword puzzles. “Crossword puzzles? If you don't think it is a good 'un, take it to the boss”, which he did. He handed the £5 note to his employer, who gave him the change.

Mr. W.C.T. Tingey, landlord of the Jubilee public house, said that on the 10th June defendant gave him a £5 note to change. Ultimately he gave his barman the change for the note. Later the same day he saw defendant in the bar, in the evening, and he received case from defendant several times. Defendant tendered him a second £5 note about 10.25 p.m. Defendant had been standing drinks to other people. The drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. when defendant gave him the second note. He did not give defendant the change that night, and he told him to call the following day. He did so, and he paid him the money. The first note he changed with Mr. Skinner, and the second he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Co. He had known defendant for three years, and he knew he had been an old sailor. He did not know what defendant was now. He was not surprised at defendant being in possession of two notes. He did not ask defendant for an explanation as to where he got the notes.

P.C. Williams said he received information about the loss of the two £5 notes, and made certain inquiries, and as a result of his inquiries he interviewed defendant on the 22nd June on the East Cliff. He told him he was a police officer, and that he was making inquiries regarding two £5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told defendant he should report the matter, and that it was possible proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned him, and he said “I don't wish to say anything”. On the 25th, at 6.30 p.m., he served the defendant with a copy of the summons, and he told defendant he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. He asked defendant if he understood it, and he replied “Yes”. He then cautioned defendant, and he replied “Finding is not stealing; I found the notes”

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said defendant went to his bar on the 10th June about 12.30. He called for three pints of beer, and tendered a £5 note in payment. He told defendant he was sorry he had no change, as he had not been to the bank, and defendant said “It is quite in order; my sister sent it to me." He had a reason for saying he could not change it, but he could have changed it. He knew defendant was a casual worker in the Fish Market. He still declined to change it, and he left owing for the beer. Defendant said he would be back later, and four days later he called and paid for the beer.

Defendant: I am guilty of finding but not of stealing. I wouldn’t rob a man of a penny. I have got nothing to say.

The Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes, just the same as I have said it.

The Clerk: The law says it is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make that out.

Inspector Pittock said defendant was a local man. He had no regular employment, and did odd jobs in the market. There were twelve convictions against him, chiefly for drunkenness, the last one in 1914.

Defendant: If you like to give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf, and won’t come up any more.

The Chairman said the magistrates had very carefully considered the case, and they might have sent defendant for six months. On account of his evident attempt to go straight in recent years, he was an old sailor, who served in the Royal Navy, and because they thought he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him to prison for one month. They hoped it would be a lesson to him. They found defendant was undoubtedly guilty by finding, but finding things was stealing them, just as much the same as if they robbed in the ordinary way of stealing. It was no excuse for defendant or anyone else that because they found something they might presume it was theirs. Their duty was to take it to the Police Station or the nearest authority they could hand it over to. With regard to the evidence to which they had listened they had first the evidence of the barman. Now the barman at the Jubilee seemed to have risen to the full height of his responsibilities as a servant, and when the note was offered to him he very properly refused to take it, in view of the fact he knew from whom he was taking it. With regard to the real licensee of the place, the licensee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibilities. There was the second time in his own house that a £5 note was changed. The barman seemed to have acted with great discretion, and the Magistrates regretted the fact that the man who held the licence did not act in the same way, and the more so because it was the second time during the day that that change of a £5 note was made. The Magistrates wished to say they granted licences to men to hold the responsibilities and the licensee was in a responsible position towards the public and the police, and the magistrates expected every help and judgment to be used in dealing with a case such as this. The Magistrates were very pleased to think that Mr. Ellen, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in this matter, and they hoped the police and Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences, and held the position they did.

Folkestone Express 3 September 1927.

Tuesday, August 30th: Before Col. Owen and other Magistrates.

L. Cpl. Robert Penman, of the South Staffordshire Regiment was summoned for assaulting Leonard Cecil Laws, and he pleaded not guilty.

Leonard Cecil Laws, a barman at the Victoria Pier, said that on Sunday evening, a fortnight ago, he went to the public bar of the Packet Boat Inn with some other men. They were all sober. He entered the taproom, and remained there until eight minutes to ten, when “Time” was called, and he went out. He did not see defendant there. There was no disturbance in the house while he was there. He was walking out of the door, and as he brought his face into full view of the street he was hit. He did not know where it came from, or who hit him. He only felt one blow. The blow knocked him down, and he became unconscious. He could not say he saw the defendant there. He was taken to the hospital, attended by the House surgeon, and then taken home. Since then he had been attending daily. His jaw was broken as a result of the blow.

Cross-examined by defendant: He did not hear the “King” played; he was outside. There were some soldiers there in civilian clothes. He was sober. He never had a drink in the house. He did not see the defendant at all.

Alexander John Dodd, lnvicta Road, butcher, said that on the 11th August he entered the Packet Boat Inn in company with three other men. They were all together in a room at the back, where there was music. He saw the defendant there. He heard no conversation, but there was some singing. He heard the landlord call “Time”, and he walked out. When he got out a civilian rushed at him and struck him three times. Two soldiers parted them. The defendant struck him in the mouth, and his pal stopped them and said “Keep out of this”. While he was speaking to his pal he saw the defendant rush at Laws. The next he saw was Laws lying on the ground. He was unconscious. There was no-one near Laws at the time he fell. Defendant never said anything, but walked away, and then returned.

Cross-examined by defendant: He did not hear the “King” played. There were three soldiers together, and defendant was in civilian clothes.

By the Clerk: Defendant apologised to him for striking him., and that was before Laws came out. He did not know what caused all the trouble.

Ernest Ellen, the landlord of the Packet Boat, said that at ten minutes to ten the “King” was played. He saw Laws and the previous witness in the back room, and they were there at ten minutes to ten. Nothing took place inside. Laws wanted his friend to play, and said there was plenty of time. He said to Laws “Who's the governor here, you or me?” Laws said he did not know who the governor was, and he (witness) replied “What am I, then?” He thought it was too late to play the piano. He saw defendant there in civilian clothes.

George Featherbe, Invicta Road, a driver's mate, said he was in the Packet Boat with Laws and Dodd. He was at the oher side of the room, and when “Time” was called he went outside, and Laws was then lying on the step. He did not see the Corporal.

The Clerk: You don't know much about it, do you? (Laughter)

Defendant, giving evidence on oath, said he was in the Packet Boat about 9.45 p.m. on the Sunday, and he and he had a drink. After the sing-song the pianist played “God Save the King”. They all stood up, but Laws was bending down, and he asked him if he would mind getting up. Laws made use of two vile expressions. When they went out Laws rushed down the steps, and went for him with his fists up. Laws missed him, and he hit Laws twice. He then walked away. Laws was lying down with a crowd round him. He asked his friend to see him, and he said he was all right. He came out before Laws. Laws wanted to fight him inside, and said “What's the matter with you?” He had a few words with Laws, and waited outside to have a few words with him. The other man came down, and two soldiers hit him. He did not hit the other man, but stopped them.

Laws said that he came out with his two hands in his pockets, and that was the way he dropped.

Cpl. Hauswell, the South Staffordshire Regiment, said that at the close of the sing-song, everyone stood up for the “King”, except Laws. He asked him if he would stand up, and he made use of disparaging remarks. Someone said “Get outside”. They went outside, and when Laws came out he went straight across to meet defendant, who hit him.

Laws said he had his hands in his overcoat pockets.

Cpl. Price, South Staffordshire Regiment, said defendant stepped aside when Laws flew towards him, and defendant hit him twice, a left and a right.

Laws said he had never seen defendant before in his life.

L. Cpl. James Marshall, of the South Staffordshire Regiment, said defendant hit Laws in self defence.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had carefully considered the case, and they had decided to dismiss it.

Folkestone Express 14 January 1928.

Tuesday, January 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Col. P. Broome-Giles, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Pte. David Black and Pte. Charles Jameson Webb, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, Shorncliffe, were summoned for wilfully damaging a window at the Packet Boat Inn, and both pleaded Not Guilty.

Ernest William Ellen, licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, said that between 9.30 and 9.40 p.m. on the 31st December, the defendants went into the bar. They called for two drinks, and he noticed they were the worse for drink. He refused to supply them, and asked them to leave the premises. He took hold of one of them by the arm, and escorted him to the door, as he refused to leave. He went, as he thought, along Radnor Street to Tontine Street, and he (witness) immediately went to the bar and took the other one out. He closed the door, and heard a crash. He turned round and saw a soldier near the window, and he saw Black hurrying along Radnor Street. Both soldiers were in uniform. It was impossible for him to go after them, as his bar was filled with customers. He reported the matter to the police after he had closed. He had an estimate for repairing the damage from Messrs. Dunk, and the amount was £5. He proceeded with Det. Constable Budgen to Shorncliffe Camp, and men were paraded, and he identified Black as the man who broke the window. He also identified Webb as the man who was with Black in his house. He had no doubt that defendants were the men who were in his house.

By the Clerk: He could not see Black's face, but he could identify him by his clothes.

Det. Constable Budgen said in consequence of inquiries made, he proceeded to Shorncliffe at 11 a.m. on January 2nd, and fifty six rank and file were paraded by the Officer Commanding for the purpose of an identification parade. Mr. Ellen went down the ranks, and without hesitation picked out the two defendants. They were called from the ranks, and he interviewed both of them, and told them he would charge them with wilfully damaging the window. They made no reply.

Mr. Ellen (Re-called) said that from the time Black went out, the breaking of the window followed almost immediately – less than half a minute after. Webb had been gone some few minutes. There were other soldiers of the same regiment in his house. He could not say whether any other soldiers had left at the same time – they might have done.

Black said that on the 31st December he was out of the Packet Boat at 9.20 p.m., and Webb left him there about nine o'clock. When he went out he went to the Harbour and caught a bus at 9.30. He met Lce. Cpl. Ford of the South Staffordshire Regiment, and he was in the Victoria Hotel at Cheriton at 9.45. He left the Camp with Webb, and was in his company that night. He saw Webb at 10.30 when he went to barracks. He did not know anything about the window. He was not the worse for drink, and he remembered the landlord asking him to leave. He told the landlord he did not want any drink, but wanted to see his mates in the back room. He first heard a window had been broken two days later. He did not say anything to the Detective Constable, because he thought it would be best to reserve his evidence for the Court.

Webb said he went into Folkestone with Black, and they entered the Packet Boat together. It must have been shortly after nine o'clock when he left. They were refused drink. They had had drink, but they were nothing like being the worse for it. He left the Packet Boat when he was asked to go, and caught a bus at the Harbour. He last saw Black when he went out of the Packet Boat, and he was then talking to the landlord. He got to barracks about 9.40. He knew nothing about breaking the window. When he was charged he did not think there was any need to speak about it.

Lce. Cpl. Ford, South Staffordshire Regiment, Shorncliffe, said that on the 31st December, at 9.30 p.m., he went to the Harbour to catch a bus, and met Black and took him to the Camp. When they got to the Victoria Hotel he asked Black to have a drink, and they went and had a drink. It was 9.45 by the clock in the bar. He had left his wife's house in North Street at 9.25. He did not know Black. He looked as if he had had a drink, but he was quite respectable, and was not kicking up a row.

A Corporal of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders said he was orderly sergeant during the week, and on the 31st December called the roll at 9.30. Webb and Black were entitled to be out on permanent pass. He was going to the guard room about 9.40, and met Pte. Webb. He was then sober and properly dressed, and Webb told him to take his name off the late pass roll. Private Black reported at 10.20.

The Magistrates retired, and said the case against Webb would be dismissed. They had very grave doubts about Black, but he was going to have the benefit of the doubt, and he would be dismissed. The landlord of the Packet Boat had done quite right in bringing these men forward. Licence holders deserved every protection from the police and public. They had a very hard duty to perform in their houses, and they complimented the landlord for not serving the men.

Folkestone Express 1 April 1933.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday the Magistrates granted a protection order to sell at the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, to Mr. J. Sirrett, ex Sergeant Major in the Royal Marine Artillery, Mr. Ellen being the outgoing tenant.

Folkestone Express 7 October 1933.

Council Meeting Extract.

The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday approved of the Health Committee's recommendations concerning the scheme for dealing with the whole of Radnor Street as a slum clearance, and further progress will therefore be possible in connection with the rebuilding of the area. The scheme include the compulsory purchase of four licensed houses, lodging houses, a restaurant, stores, temporary buildings for amusement, and workshops.

The Health Committee's recommendations dealing with the matter were as follows: (extract)

Resolved: That Compulsory Purchase Orders be made for the purchase by the Council; that there shall be included in the above-mentioned Compulsory Purchase Orders the under-mentioned properties and such other properties which are surrounded by or adjoin the clearance area, including: Radnor Street, No. 59, public house (Packet Boat Inn); No. 24, public house (Jubilee Inn); No. 30, public house (Oddfellows Arms); No. 38, public house (Ship Inn)

Councillor Dallas Brett said with regard to the four public houses those were matters presenting somewhat of a difficulty. It was a difficulty which had not been got over at the present moment, because it had not been tackled, but he was informed at the Ministry in other schemes throughout the country, where public houses had existed and had to be got rid of, private arrangement with the brewers had been made, which had been more satisfactory than would have been thought possible He proposed to ask his Committee to give instructions to himself and the Town Clerk to see what arrangements could be made. Whatever they did, they had got to realise that the whole area had to be cleared, and that they included in their plans two very valuable sites for public house property, to take the place of one or two or more of the houses which were in existence in Radnor Street at the present time. It was a matter of negotiations.

Councillor Barfoot said he believed that the scheme would be materially reduced if the stores and two public houses on the Fish Market were left as they were, and if the houses which it was proposed to build on that site were built on what was now the amusement park.

The resolution confirming the adoption of the recommendations was almost unanimously carried.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Council are making material progress with the scheme for the clearance of the slums in Radnor Street, and this will undoubtedly be pleasing to the majority of Folkestone people. Practically all opposition to the scheme in the Council Chamber has vanished, and it is clear that the members are determined that without any delay now the operations will be pushed forward to a successful conclusion. Yesterday the General Purposes Committee considered the Health Committee minutes in connection with the further development of the scheme, and the members were almost unanimous concerning the Committee's decisions. These were mainly concerned with the licensed houses in teh area. These might have provided a very knotty problem, for they were left out of the proposed scheme by the Health Minister's order. Unless something had been done in this direction three of the houses would have remained as they were, and would have undoubtedly proved an eyesore set amidst a modern and what will be a model housing estate. The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson) was instructed to negotiate with the owners of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn, and he is certainly to be complimented upon the able manner in which he carried out those negotiations, and which will certainly contribute towards the ultimate success of the scheme. The present three houses will, if the proposals go through as it is hoped, be demolished and will be re-built within the layout of the whole scheme. This will necessitate an exchange of land, and the owners will receive an added piece of land. Another licensed house in the area will disappear, but that will be a matter of purchase. The re-erection of modern licensed houses will certainly add to the effectiveness of the clearance of the whole of the area. The purchase of three houses in Radnor Street not included in the order will also give added scope for dealing with the whole of the area in a manner which will resound to the credit of Folkestone. In order that the re-housing of people from the area and other areas can be efficaciously carried out, the Committee yesterday also agreed to the erection of 32 additional houses on the Hill Road Housing Estate. Everyone who has consideration for those people who have had to live in houses not worthy of being called houses will assuredly agree with this extension of the Corporation estate. It looks like being full steam ahead now with regard to the Radnor Street slum clearance, and those who have regard for the fair name of Folkestone will be exceedingly pleased.

Council Meeting Extract.

Yesterday (Thursday) the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council had before them the recommendations of the Health Committee regarding the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, and by their approval considerable progress will be made in the proposals for the demolition of the property. The recommendations include the demolition of three of the licensed houses on the sit and their removal on to different sites, and the removal of one house altogether.

The Health Committee's recommendations were as follows:- Radnor Street Area: (a) Licensed Houses: The Town Clerk reported that, as instructed by the Committee, he had been in negotiation with the owners of the licensed houses excluded from the provisions of the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The result of the negotiations is as follows: Jubilee Inn: The owners of this house are prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council, subject to the cleared site being conveyed to them in exchange for the site of the existing Jubilee Inn. Oddfellows Arms: The owners of this house are also prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council. This proposal will also involve an exchange of lands, and is subject to the Corporation agreeing to compensate the tenant for his trade fixtures and fittings, such compensation to be fixed by a valuer to be agreed upon. Ship Inn: No definite decision has yet been received from the owners of this house, but it is likely that they will also agree to demolish and re-build this house on a site in the vicinity of the present house. The arrangement will also involve an exchange of lands. The whole of the above mentioned arrangements are, of course, subject to the approval of the Licensing Justices.

Resolved that the committee approve in principle of the above mentioned arrangements.

Councillor Lillie said that meeting was brought forward a week in order that the negotiations which the Town clerk had had in connection with the licensed houses could be considered. If the licence holders had to transfer their licence from the present house to the house it was proposed to build no time should be lost in considering the recommendations in order that the owners could be informed so that they could appear before the Justices at the Brewster Sessions and make application for their transfer. He would like the Committee to express their approval of those negotiations, and also to make any remarks they wished in regard to any items on those proceedings. He moved that the minutes be approved. Alderman Mrs. Gore seconded.

Councillor Barfoot: Do you not think as the public houses are to be pulled down an attempt should be made to reduce the number there? There certainly does not appear to be any need for three in teh area. Cannot an application be made to the licensing authorities to have the number reduced?

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: How many houses have to be sacrificed if the Ship Inn is to be given a plot?

The Town Clerk: If it remains as it is it will take the site of two houses.

Councillor Hart asked the Town Clerk whether the Ministry of Health did not state that the licensed houses should not be reduced.

The Town Clerk: They did not say that. The Ministry excluded the licensed houses under the Compulsory Purchase Order, which prevented you from acquiring the properties. The point raised by Councillor Barfoot is quite a different matter. I understand representations were made comparatively recently to have one removed.

Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.

The Town Clerk: And the licensing Justices decided not to refuse the licence.

Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.

The Mayor: In what respect?

The Town clerk: There is one house going. We are acquiring one of the four there at present.

Councillor Johnson: Have we any information about trade done by these houses – the barrelage?

Councillor Gadd: On a point of order. Is this not a question of slum clearance and not redundancy of licence? Have we any authority for dealing with redundancy this morning?

The Mayor: We have not. It will have to be brought up by an outside authority. At the present time it is not before us.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said they offered doubling the plot of land for the re-building of the public houses. Land constituted wealth, so they were offering something in the shape of wealth to the owners of the licensed houses. They were having to buy those new houses, and they had a number of deficiencies which were caused through having to give up that land.

The Town Clerk: It is not so.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said when they were in Committee the Town clerk asked the Borough Engineer why he could not squash the houses up a little more, and the Borough Engineer said it was impossible. It was then discussed that they should buy the three additional houses.

The Mayor: That was more from the point of view of giving a better approach to the houses.

Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.

The Town Clerk said he wished to explain that the Minister merely said that they were not to spend £20,000 to buy public houses.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said it was no use discussing that; the public houses were there. She was referring to the first meeting after the Ministry's decision was published.

The Town Clerk said the Minister's order excluded the public houses in order that the expense of acquiring them might be avoided. As, at any rate, two of them interfered with the lay-out it became incumbent upon them to arrange for their removal on some terms. The owners had agreed to remove them all to other sites on the terms of exchanging land. They, therefore, got the houses removed from their present sites as they desired, at no cost other than that the sites on which they were going were slightly larger than the sites on which the present houses stood. “I have”, he said “seen the Ministry of Health of those proposals. They think the proposals before you are extremely satisfactory”. They had got the removal of the three licensed places from their present lay-out at a very small cost indeed.

Councillor Davis said in four or five years' time the question of redundancy might come up again. Would it not then cost more than it would today to reduce the number? That was what he thought Councillor Barfoot was driving at.

The Town clerk: Why should it be suggested in five years that you would want to buy a new house?

Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.

The Town Clerk said the question of redundancy had nothing to do with the Council. If there was a wish to reduce them in five or six years' time there was the question of redundancy to consider, and that would have to be decided by the Compensation Authority.

The Mayor: This question does not come within the scope of this Council.

Councillor Barfoot: Was it not understood that on the site of Nos. 5, 7, and 9 a public house would be built on that corner?

Several members: No.

Councillor Kent said if that scheme was carried out they would have three modern public houses with adequate accommodation, which they did not possess now. The arrangements were, he considered, splendid.

The Mayor said he was present at the meeting of the Health Committee, and he thought they were all indebted to the Town Clerk for the very able manner in which he had carried out very delicate negotiations. He thought the Council had done exceedingly well, and he considered the best thing they could do was to agree to those recommendations unanimously.

The resolution approving the minutes was carried, only Mrs. Thiselton voting against it.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1935.

Editorial.

The Town Council are to purchase the Packet Boat Inn in connection with the Radnor Street scheme, and therefore the Corporation will become the possessors of a licence. How they are to dispose of that licence will prove a very knotty problem for them to solve. A discussion on the question at Wednesday's Council meeting clearly indicated that there was a good deal of feeling over the matter, and when it comes before the General Purposes Committee on Tuesday it is not improbable that there will be a lively debate on the subject. Mr. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, certainly did not deserve the rebuke concerning the action he had taken in the matter so far by one prominent member of the Council, and it is hoped that no heat will be evinced by any of the members when they meet on Tuesday to decide what looks like being a very difficult matter. It is hardly possible to imagine that the East Cliff Pavilion will be suitable for a fully licensed establishment, and it mus be borne in mind that the Licensing Justices would only grant a restricted licence to the Leas Cliff Hall.

Council Meeting Extract.

The monthly meeting of the Town Council was held on Wednesday.

The Radnor Street Scheme.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said she would like to know if Nos. 5, 7, and 9, Radnor Street had been offered for the re-building of the Ship Inn.

Councillor Lillie said Councillor Mrs. Thiselton had learned there was a wish by the owners of one of the licensed houses in the area to build a new public house on the site of the three houses. The offer was still open and they could negotiate with the Council. He thought he could hold out no hope that they were likely to do so.

East Cliff Pavilion; Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The Town Clerk read an extract from the proceedings of the Catering Sub-Committee of the 21st January, 1935, recommending the removal of the intoxicating liquor licence from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Resolved that the recommendation of the Catering Sub-Committee be not approved.

Land at The Stade; Catering: (a) Proceedings of Sub-Committee; Read the following provisions of the Catering Sub-Committee: East Cliff Pavilion Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The Town clerk reported for the information of the Sub-Committee that the licensed house known as the Packet Boat Inn, 59, Radnor Street, is included in the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The Corporation will acquire this licensed house, including the intoxicating liquor licence. The Sub-Committee considered the question of the removal of such licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Resolved that this Sub-Committee recommend that at the appropriate time the necessary application should be made for the removal of the licence from the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Alderman Hollands said he wished to move that the Committee's recommendation with regard to the purchase of the Packet Boat Inn be not approved, but that it be referred to the General Purposes Committee for further consideration. There was no doubt that it would be a contentious matter. Councillor Bridgland seconded.

Councillor Saunders: This is a question of the transfer of a licence which the Corporation would purchase through its slum clearance scheme and would become the property of the Corporation. The suggestion was that it should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Town Clerk introduced this matter to the Parks Committee. It was part of the Town Clerk's duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the licence. I want to say right away now that I oppose the transfer of the licence to our pavilion, and I want to stop it. The matter was brought before the Parks Committee. The Sub-Committee voted in favour of it, and when it came before the Committee it was defeated by a majority. I suggest there is no public demand for a full seven days' licence, and I suggest there is no necessity for it. It would be detrimental to the neighbourhood. It could not be said that it is in the interests of the golf course, because it is a success. Some of my golf friends will not agree with me. I suggest that the pavilion is better off without a licence, and I hope the Council will give a decisive vote this morning. The licence was put into the Leas Cliff Hall purely for the use of the patrons of that hall. It was safeguarded by the Licensing Justices putting a condition in the licence. I do not think it is any business of the Corporation to enter into the business of a licensed victualler on the East Cliff. I think the trade is able to supply all the public needs in that vicinity. We have to use our discretion in this matter. I deplore the action of the Town Clerk in bringing this to the Parks Committee at all.

The Mayor: I object to that statement.

Councillor Saunders: I have a right to say what I think. I think it was his duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the licensed premises, but it is no part of the own Clerk's duty to initiate any process. (Several members: He has not done that.) As far as I am concerned, though I am the Chairman of the Committee who hold a licence for the Corporation, I am distinctly against any furtherance of the activities of the Corporation in that manner. I was against the Leas Cliff Hall licence. The Council will do a grave wrong if they do not support the majority of the Committee.

Councillor Kent: In a case like this where we have to pay a large sum of money for a licence, and then have to surrender the licence, surely it is the duty of the Town Clerk to bring it before the appropriate Committee to see whether it was the wish of the Council to retain that licence by taking it to a building erected by the Council. The Town Clerk has acted properly in the minds of many of the members.

The Mayor: He would have been neglecting his duty if he had not done so. It was his bounden duty to bring that matter forward, and he has done so.

Councillor Saunders: I respectfully suggest it is a matter of opinion. I have a right to put my opinion to the public.

The Town clerk: I should have had no authority to go and surrender that asset of yours without consulting you, and asking what you should have done with it, either using it or surrendering it in the hope that you may get compensation. You are not bound to get compensation for it. There is an asset, and it is not for an official to say what should be done about it without consulting the authority.

Alderman Stainer: Has the Council ever approved of the East Cliff Pavilion being used for the sale of intoxicating drink? (Cries of “Yes”.)

Alderman Franks said he was going to support Alderman Hollands' amendment. He did so because when a local authority was going to discuss the question of a licence, did they not think the more light they had on the question the more information the public got so that they could frame up for and against? Let them have the full limelight on it. He did not see why an opportunity should be turned down without the public knowing anything about the chance or whether a licence should be granted or not.

Councillor Hart said he was supporting Alderman Hollands' amendment. When they arrived at the decision in regard to Radnor Street the Town Clerk very rightly told them there was one house to go, and it remained for the Council whether they wanted the licence moved to another place or not. How did Councillor Saunders know the need did not exist? He (the speaker) was in favour of that, and he would be affected by it if there was a licence, for he had customers within a stone's throw of the East Cliff Pavilion. He could assure Councillor Saunders that people did want that place. He saw that some multiple firm had engaged the Pavilion for a staff gathering, and a licence would be used on that occasion under the management of Councillor Saunders.

Councillor Saunders: I object to that.

Councillor Hart: Who has applied for the licence?

Councillor Saunders: I wish to make a personal explanation, for a reflection has been made upon me by Councillor Hart. I am the Chairman of the Entertainments Committee, not the holder of the licence. The Parks Superintendent rang me up one day last week and said they had an application for an occasional licence for the Pavilion, and would the Entertainments Manager apply for it? I said “Yes”, but I considered it, and afterwards I rang him up, and said that I considered he should get that occasional licence. The Parks Superintendent said “Very well”, and rang up the Chairman of the Committee, who did not agree with that point of view. I rang up Councillor Kent, whose point of view was that the licence was the property of the Corporation, and that it was the duty of the Entertainments Manager, rightly or wrongly, to apply for it. I took the view that it was usually the duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for licences, and that probably it might be part of his job.

The Mayor: There is no personal reflection upon you.

Councillor Kent said he had no objection to the amendment. He felt the licence was too valuable to surrender. He quite agreed something must be done quickly, because the application would have to be made to move the licence from one building to another at the annual licensing sessions or the adjourned licensing sessions.

The General Purposes Committee would have to be called together quickly.

The amendment was carried by 26 votes to five.

Folkestone Express 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday at the Folkestone Town Hall, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported that there had only been 15 convictions for drunkenness, the number being the same as the previous year. One licence, that of the Mechanics Arms, was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions, all the others being renewed. The licensing hours were extended for the whole of the summer time period by half an hour, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.

Mr. R.G. Wood presided, and a number of Magistrates were on the Bench.

Radnor Street Licensed Houses.

Several of the clergy and ministers and representatives of various religions and temperance bodies were present in Court, evidently with a view to watching the proceedings concerning the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area. Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, was also present.

The Chairman asked the Town Clerk if he had anything to say.

Mr. Nicholson said he really did not quite understand the position with regard to the licences in the Radnor Street area. Did they want him to explain what the Corporation's proposals would be?

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): These licences will be renewed today?

Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.

The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?

Mr. Nicholson: The Corporation do not own any of the licences for the moment. I did not anticipate I should have to explain anything today.

The Chairman: We are asked to renew four licences in the area. We have no official information. It is a question whether they should be renewed or referred to the adjourned sessions. We know something by newspapers. We can defer the renewal and in the meantime think over what action we shall take.

Mr. Nicholson: The owners of these houses are not represented this morning. Is it proper for me to say anything about it?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

Mr. Nicholson: I did not ask to be here.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: Is this an application now being made for the renewal of the four licences? If so, have the applications been made in order?

The Clerk, to Mr. Nicholson: Is there anything you have to officially mention? In the ordinary course there is an application for the renewal of all the licences, which does not affect what you are doing in the Radnor Street area.

Mr. Nicholson: I am not making any application this morning.

The Chairman: We would like to have some information of what is likely to happen.

Mr. Nicholson said as they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a compulsory purchase order. There were four licensed houses in the area. The Ministry declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of the houses and they were struck out of the order. The remaining house, the Packet Boat, would be acquired by the Corporation as a going concern. It so happened that the Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows Arms, where they now stood, interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses, and on instructions he entered into negotiations with the owners. Two of them, the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms, agreed to re-erect, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, on alternative sites that would enable the Corporation's lay-out scheme to be proceeded with. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners as to whether they were prepared to pull down and re-erect a new house. The terms of the arrangements with the Jubilee and the Oddfellows were subject to applications which would be made to them in due course. There was to be an exchange of land in connection with them. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than paying the tenant for the trade fixtures. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not obtained information whether they were prepared to pull down. That house did not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two. It would be much better for the scheme if that house was pulled down and re-erected, but the Corporation could not insist upon it. The other owners had done all they could to assist in their scheme. The Packet Boat would be definitely acquired. Notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. The Ministry confirmed the order which included that house.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, who stated he represented a number of residents in that area, said he would like to raise a question on the renewal of the houses.

The Clerk: I cannot see you have any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox asked if the matter for the removals would come up at the adjourned sessions. If so, he would be there to object. It seemed to him they would be able that day to only provisionally renew the licences for the time being, or mention that they would be referred on the ground of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said a very considerable number of residents were interested in those four licences. If there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of the licences they definitely asked that their views might be considered in reference to redundancy.

The Chairman enquired what the police view was.

The Chief Constable said at the Magistrates' primary meeting he received instructions to go into the question of redundancy and ascertain whether it would be possible to differentiate between the houses. He did so and he found some considerable difficulty in saying because it was an established fact that there were not too many licensed houses for the summer trade in the area. All the houses did extremely well. Whether they were structurally adapted or not was open to enquiry. The houses less structurally fitted were doing a better trade. More customers were in those pokey houses than in the better houses. There was, he supposed, a psychological reason for it. He had had a system of paying monthly visits and it gave him a line on the trade. He had selected a certain number of houses and they had put them into three groups.

The Chief Constable then described the groups and gave details of the numbers of customers in them at certain times. The first group consisted of the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. The second group included the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris Hotel, and the Princess Royal. The third group were the Alexandra Hotel, Royal George, South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak, and the Lifeboat.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter and on their return the Chairman said they had decided to renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which they renewed until the adjourned licensing sessions when it would be considered with regard to redundancy.

Dr. Carlile: Then no objection can be taken here and now, or in any other place, to the four licences involved in the scheme?

The Clerk: There will be applications for removals later and anyone can be heard at the time those applications are made. That is the position.

The Chairman: It will be better for the objections to be raised when the transfer comes along.

Dr. Carlile: It puts us at a very serious disadvantage. There will only be a question of renewal then.

The Chairman: It is a question of renewing them for one year now.

Dr. Carlile: It will be a question of the removal of licences that have already been granted.

The Chairman: That is the position.

Editorial.

The members of the Town Council on Tuesday had a big debate on the question of the proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which is to be purchased under the Compulsory Purchase Order in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance area, to the East Cliff Pavilion. The discussion was conducted in a particularly calm and well-reasoned manner, and one feature of it was the manner in which the proceedings were handled by Alderman Franks, who was voted to the chair in the regretted absence of the Mayor through illness, and the Deputy Mayor. Alderman Franks certainly showed his great capability to occupy the position, and his able conduct of the business undoubtedly convinced every member present that he should in the near future undertake the highest honours which a town can bestow on one of its citizens. The Committee decided that the Council should be recommended to make application for the transference of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion, and so paved the way for what will be unquestionably a stern fight over the matter before it is ultimately decided. It was made quite clear by those who supported the proposal that there is no thought of turning the Pavilion into what is regarded generally as a public house, and this fact should allay the qualms of quite a number of people concerning the matter. It was stated by one of the chief supporters of the proposal that he would endeavour to see that there should be a condition imposed that no drinks should be served for consumption off the premises, and other speakers hinted that there would be no bars in the usual acceptation of the term. One of the objects of the erection of the Pavilion was to supply refreshments to meet the needs of the many thousands of people who flock to what is becoming one of Folkestone's principal attractive spots, and if the licence is to be mainly for the purpose of supplying alcoholic drink to people using the building for obtaining refreshments, then doubtless some of the opposition, which would have been launched against what is regarded as a public house licence only, will evaporate. One argument used was that if the licence was not transferred to the Pavilion it might not be long before another application is made for a real public house to be built in the district by a brewer's firm offering to transfer a licence from another portion of the town to that area. This has been done frequently up and down the country. Some of those who objected to the proposal did so on the ground that a municipal authority should not become licence holders, but Folkestone would not be the first local authority to become possessed of such a licence. Some seaside resorts which are often quoted as examples for Folkestone to follow in some directions hold licences in similar circumstances as proposed by the Committee's resolution. I suppose there will be petitions and counter-petitions, and whoever has the ultimate task of deciding the question will have a difficult task placed on their shoulders. It will be remembered that when the Leas Cliff Hall obtained the licence the decision was not upon the local Magistrates, but Justices from the Elham Division sat at Folkestone Court, and agreed to the transfer of the Rose Hotel licence to Folkestone's attractive hall. I suppose a similar procedure would have to be adopted in this instance if the resolution passed on Tuesday meets with the approval of the Council, as it seems likely, provided there is not a swing of the pendulum so far as the opinion of the members is concerned.

Council Meeting.

The General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council on Tuesday discussed the question of whether application should be made for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which is to be purchased under the Radnor Street slum clearance area scheme, to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Sub-Committee of the Parks Committee recommended that that course should be adopted, but the Parks Committee recommended that the Council should not approve of the application being made. At the Council meeting last week it was decided that the matter should be referred to the General Purposes Committee for consideration.

The Mayor was unable to be present owing to illness on Tuesday when the General Purposes Committee met, and the Deputy Mayor was also absent. Alderman T.S. Franks was elected to the chair in the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

The Chairman said the Town Clerk informed him that he had received several letters addressed to him on the subject, and the Committee would probably like the letters read before discussing the matter.

The Town Clerk then read the letters, the first being from Dr. H. Dodgson, Sea View, Dover Street. It stated “I notice by the Folkestone Herald that a special meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Town Council is to be held on February 12th for the express purpose of discussing the question of transferring the licence from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion. I wish to register my emphatic protest against any such action being taken. My reasons for doing so are: (1) In my opinion it is absolutely unnecessary. (2) I am very much afraid it will lead to all kinds of immorality, as the excessive use of alcohol almost invariably does. (3) The neighbourhood of the East Cliff has in recent years developed considerably, and is now a credit to the Borough. I consider it should be the desire of the Council to keep it free from any influence that could possibly injure our young people. (4) A licence at the East Cliff Pavilion would deteriorate the value of all property in the vicinity. (5) As a ratepayer, I strongly object to virtually becoming a shareholder in the liquor traffic activities of the Borough Council. I shall be obliged to you if you will bring this letter to the notice of your Committee tomorrow”.

The Folkestone Branch of the National British Women's Total Abstinence League wrote “The members of the above-mentioned Union understand that the General purposes Committee are meeting tomorrow to consider specially the question of granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the East Cliff Pavilion. In view of the fact that the Pavilion is one of the places in the town where our young men and women will congregate in large numbers, we deplore the possibility that such a licence may be granted, and in their interests urge upon the Committee the undesirability of such a course”.

A letter on behalf of the Folkestone Girl Crusaders, the Boys' Brigade, and the Gordon Club was as follows “Will you kindly place this letter before the General Purposes Committee at their meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) to discuss the granting of a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. Being deeply interested in the moral welfare of young men and women, we strongly desire the authorities to consider carefully the temptations with which our young people will be faced if a licence is granted to the East Cliff Pavilion. These temptations, almost invariably present wherever intoxicating drinks are sold, will be made still more difficult in view of the situation of the hall rendering it difficult for efficient supervision, and also owing to its being on the borders of the Warren; lonely, unprotected country. We wish to register our protest against the granting of this licence as it may easily make this part of the town undesirable, if not dangerous, to the moral welfare of our young people. As our work brings us into contact with many young people, we do know in the majority of cases that drink has been the first step towards moral ruin”.

Miss A. Wilson, of Lennard Lodge, Lennard Road, wrote “May I voice a protest against the proposal to allow intoxicating drinks to be sold at the East Cliff Pavilion to the deterioration of the property owners and the usual discomfort of residents – which generally does take place when closing time comes along – disturbing the rest of so many invalids and visitors who live in what should be a rapidly rising residential area. Also it will encourage the most noisy type of trippers to spoil the East Leas, which during the summer months is so appreciated by an ever increasing number of people. Truly hoping it will never come to pass”.

Dr. T.W. Crawford sent the following letter from Lennard Lodge. “As a ratepayer living near the East Cliff, I beg to protest against the proposal of transferring a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. I venture to assert that the great majority of citizens living over here would, if consulted, not consider it advisable to have licensed premises in this residential area. We do not consider it advisable to have intoxicants sold near to our sports ground and golf course, which is frequented by so many of our young people. We consider that our town has enough licensed premises already, and strongly protest against any more being established in residential districts of our town”.

A letter from the Gordon Club was as follows “As representatives of this club whose aim is to help the unprivileged youth of this town to attain the highest development of manhood in body, mind and spirit, we are greatly concerned at the proposal to transfer a licence to the new pavilion on East Cliff. We feel that facilities to obtain intoxicating liquor there cannot but be detrimental to the young people of both sexes who use the East Cliff golf course and the municipal tennis courts, and others who congregate in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the position of the building, in a public park on the outskirts of town, renders proper police supervision difficult, thus it will not be easy to check any tendency to misconduct of any sort which may arise. We earnestly hope that the Council will register a decision more in accord with the aims of this and similar bodies who are striving for the moral uplift of the town”.

Mr. Arthur T. Cook, of Carshalton, Surrey, wrote “I see by your local paper that the question of a licence for the new pavilion on the East Cliff has arisen, and as an old and very frequent visitor to your health-giving resort I trust you will not take exception to my writing to you on the subject, as in my own humble opinion the east end of the town is becoming the most popular owing to the fact that you now have a very nice stretch of sand and safe and delightful bathing, but I must admit that there is not a licensed house in the vicinity of the East Cliff (with the exception of the Royal Pavilion Hotel) where one feels disposed to take a lady, and I consider that a licence at the new pavilion is the very thing that is needed. If I may be so bold, might I also suggest that another boon for the East Enders would be a band performance on the East Cliff, say two or three evenings a week? I think you will agree with me that the popular taste has to be catered for, and as proof of this assertion, might I point to the great success of your Popular Wednesday evenings at the Leas Cliff Hall, and on my next visit I hope to see similar gatherings in the new Pavilion. I trust you will not consider these suggestions out of place from one who is not a ratepayer, but only as from one who wishes to see your town cater for the public and so bring more prosperity. Might I sign myself as a well-wisher?”

A letter from the Folkestone Equitable Golf Club was as follows: “I would be pleased if you would kindly cause the following to be placed before the General Purposes Committee at their next meeting, which, I understand, is being held on Tuesday, the 12th inst. At a meeting of the above club I was instructed to communicate with the appropriate Committee regarding the proposed transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. The following is not purely the opinion of our members as a Golf Club, but as ratepayers, of whom our members are about 90 percent. It is felt that having regard to: (a) The tens of thousands of people visiting during the year; (b) the residential growth of the East Cliff; (c) the fact of the Town Council sinking some thousands of pounds in the erection of the East Cliff Pavilion; (d) that the East Cliff definitely warrants this licence. The Town Council having acquired this licence, which, we assume, has cost the town no small amount, have now an opportunity of opening up, without any cost, another source of revenue by transferring this licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It would appear to be deplorable to throw away such a valuable asset, and we are of the opinion that there will be, and is, a public demand for this licence, and having regard to the revenue point of view a real necessity for it. We do not think that the granting of this licence will be in any way detrimental to the neighbourhood, for many of our residents are members of this particular part of the town, and their opinion is at least worth some consideration. It is therefore hoped that the General Purposes Committee, when discussing the question of this licence, will have due regard to the opinion of a few ratepayers who would not relish the knowledge that such an asset and source of income had been cast aside. Yours faithfully, W. Smith, Hon. Secretary”.

Mr. J. Tucker, of Purley, wrote “I have read with interest in the Folkestone Express and Hythe Advertiser the debate which took place in Council regarding the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. May I, as a frequent visitor over a number of years, and an ardent admirer of Folkestone, be permitted to express the hope that the licence will be applied to the East Cliff Pavilion, which is unquestionably a very fine hall. I think it is only a matter of time before it is found that the attractions of Folkestone have moved eastwards on account of the bathing facilities at that end, and in view of the structural alterations about to take place. This being so, it should, in fairness to visitors staying at that end, be possible for them to attend dances, etc., in the Pavilion without being “forced” to the Leas Cliff Hall. Furthermore, I know of no suitable place where one can take a lady for some mid-day refreshment after a round on the golf course. May I be pardoned for taking what, as a non-ratepayer, may be considered a libert in writing to you”.

Mr. R.R. Tatt, East Cliff, Folkestone, wrote: “With reference to the purchase of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. I have read that the residents in the East Cliff district say this licence is not required. As the proprietor of a large of a large boarding house I would like to say that it was a general remark among visitors who saw the Pavilion being built and afterwards saw it opened, that it was a great improvement, and when a band – (we understand a bandstand has been suggested) - and a licence were provided, it would fill a long-felt want on the Cliff and help considerably to popularise this end of town. From a visitor's point of view, more particularly a day visitor, picnicking with his family on the Cliff, is it not very desirable that all members of the party should be able to obtain refreshments of any description from the same refreshment house, and at the same time a profitable business worked up by the Council? Is this not desirable? Why is it that those who complain most about losses on Corporation entertainments, etc., are the first to say “We don't want the place for the profit”? What are we ratepayers to understand? The pavilion is far enough away from any licensed premises to cause no loss to anyone else, and it would give a great amount of satisfaction to visitors who already know our beautiful cliff, and at the same time popularise the golf and tennis court and East Cliff sands. The Corporation has an opportunity to make money by drawing to the places where chairs, etc., are all Corporation owned. Can you tell me why there is any opposition?”

The Town Clerk, after reading the letters, said: I am pleased to say that is all. (Laughter)

The Chairman said he wished to make a personal explanation. During the discussion in the previous week he stated that he remembered that provision had been made in that building by the Parks Committee, of which he was Chairman at the time, for the facilities for selling intoxicating drink. He wanted to make it plain that there was never any question of there being a public house licence there. Some years ago, when they started golf on the East Cliff, they had an application from the different clubs to erect a hut in order that members might have facilities for a club licence if they thought fit. The Council wanted to retain entire control of the golf course, and they did not want to have the place disfigured by a variety of huts. He then said when the time arrived the Committee would probably put forward proposals for erecting a utility building in keeping with the neighbourhood. He never heard, nor did he understand, that he conveyed that the facilities would be for a public house licence. The Committee wanted to make the Pavilion a complete building, and so prevent alterations afterwards, therefore provision was made for certain facilities.

Alderman Hollands said he would like to move a resolution on the lines that the Council take the necessary steps when the time arose to transfer the licence from the Packet Boat to the East Cliff Pavilion. He did so as one of the oldest representatives of the East Ward. He appreciated the fact that they were there to do the best for those whom they represented. In his opinion they would be doing the right thing in getting a licence. There was an advantage placed at their disposal to obtain a licence. They had to purchase the Packet Boat Inn, and therefore the licence was at their disposal. They could, if they thought fit, surrender the licence, but he was afraid they would not get very much for it. There was no decent public house within half a mile of that Pavilion. There was no more desirable building for such a licence. They would be providing lunches at the Pavilion in the summer, and people would be requiring drink with their lunches, and they could not send round the corner for it. Was it not high time we woke up to the fact that British people were a responsible, clean-minded set of people? He had had no-one approach him against the licence, but he had had letters from many people pushing him to secure that licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. They need not keep the Pavilion open all the year. They might open it in the winter in the daytime, but it could be closed in the winter. He thought in the summer months the licence would be a great benefit, and not a detriment. The Hotel Metropole was only open for about three months of the year. The liquor trade was tied up with all sorts of restrictions. He lived in that district, and he did not think the value of property would go down if the licence was obtained; in fact, he thought it would help to make the property more valuable. There were people who were definite Prohibitionists and who wished to prevent anyone from drinking. They had an illustration of that in America, where there was more cursedness and wickedness going on when they found substitutes. They had better have moderate drinking as they had in that country, and trusting people, instead of something like the conditions they had in America. He hoped the Council would be broad-minded and act in the interests of the town by agreeing to that transfer of the licence.

Alderman King-Turner said he rose to second the resolution. He had been fighting for 24 years against conditions to the detriment of people in the ward, and had given the best part of his life for the uplifting of that portion of the town. He did not think they could take the letters seriously. It seemed to him that some people thought they would be committing a crime if they permitted a licence there. He had been appealed to get a licence many times for that building. The licence was necessary for that part of the town, and they should give people the advantages they desired. He was not going to take it that it was a crime to have a licence there. He wanted to give facilities for the people up there to help themselves. He was broad-minded, and asked the members to support the resolution. The licence would be one of the most perfect things to provide on the East Cliff.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said apparently the only attractions for Folkestone in the future would be the facilities visitors could get for drink. Their children, it had been stated, were not allowed in a public house, so did that mean that children would not be able to go into the Pavilion? That Pavilion was the resort of young people and a place where entertainment and refreshments could be obtained. That question was inadvertently mentioned at one of the Health Committee meetings several weeks ago, and the Town Clerk immediately stifled the discussion in that Committee. She did not think he could deny that. She could not see why that matter should be rushed and for that Committee to meet before the Brewster Sessions. There was, therefore, no time to do anything after the decision of this Committee was known. “It is extraordinary”, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said, “that Alderman Hollands should take that action, for he has a son employed by the Parks Committee. Mr. Kent is, or was, a licensed victualler, and Mr. Bridgland is, I believe, related to the family who has been interested in the catering previously”.

The Chairman: I hope you will not enter into personalities, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton. One is not a keeper of their relations. I suggest you keep within bounds. I ought to mention this matter is not rushed. The Brewster Sessions has nothing to do with this licence.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: It must be settled today.

The Chairman: I ask you to be more careful in your statements.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: Last year we started with the advertising of whisk distillers on the East Cliff. For the sake of the youth of Folkestone I appeal to the Council to reject the recommendations before us. I do not think anyone in this Council has had longer experience than I have had of work amongst young people, starting when I was 18. I have worked and lived in the East End of London and in the provinces. I have worked in France and other foreign countries, and it is ridiculous to compare our habits with those of the French. Our whole outlook is different. I hope that those who are responsible for deciding this matter will think twice before they support this resolution.

The Town Clerk said if that resolution was carried it was only a resolution of the Committee and had to be confirmed by the Council. This will not come before the Brewster Sessions or the adjourned Sessions. If it is decided that the application be made and it is approved by the Town Council the application will not be made before the Brewster Sessions or the adjourned Sessions.

Councillor Davis said he thought it would be helpful to him if the Town Clerk would answer the question: “What happens to the licence if the Council decide not to apply for its transfer to the East Cliff Pavilion?” He would also like to know what would be the position if in the near future it was thought that a licence was necessary in that district.

The Town clerk said they were purchasing a licensed house in the Radnor Street area, known as the Packet Boat. The price they would pay for that would be just the market value. As a matter of fact he had received that morning a claim from the owners of the house in response to the notice to treat, and the amount of the claim is £4,693.

Councillor Saunders: How much of that is for the licence? Are you not including the value of the building as well?

The Town Clerk: That is for the whole of the building.

Councillor Saunders: The licence is only part of the cost?

The Town clerk said looking at the provisions of the Housing Act, 1930, there was a special clause which dealt with the provisions of licensed houses purchased by the local authority. There were several methods in which they might deal with it. Councillor Davis asked what would happen to that licence in the event of it not being transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. According to sub-section 2 of section 14, if they purchased or contracted to purchase the premises, the Authority intimated to the Licensing Justices that they were willing to surrender the licence, the Justices might refer that matter to the Compensation Authority, and that Authority, on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence, should contribute out of the compensation fund to the local authority the sum not exceeding the compensation which would have been payable under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, on the refusal of the renewal of the licence. They would, therefore, be at liberty to go to the Licensing Justices, and if they agreed that the licence is not surrendered might properly be dealt with as a redundant licence they might award their compensation for its surrender. The compensation for surrender was the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and the value of the premises without a licence. The amount of the valuation is that specified by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. That was one method. Another method of dealing with it was, of course, that which they were considering. There was still another method, and that was to endeavour to dispose of the licence by finding someone to purchase it.

Councillor Davis: What would be the position if the Council did not have the licence and later found they wanted a licence?

The Town Clerk said if that licence was not transferred to the Pavilion and either surrendered or sold, and at some future time they found they wanted a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion, they would have to apply for a new licence, which, he thought would be admitted by everyone, would be difficult to obtain. They would have to pay a monopoly value on the granting of a new licence, which would add to the cost. The monopoly value was the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and unlicensed, so it might be a very considerable sum.

Councillor Younghusband: Approximately what would be the actual cost of the licence?

The Town Clerk: The licence duty in respect of the licence if transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion would be half the net annual value of the premises.

Councillor Saunders: Can you tell us that now?

The Town Clerk said the Borough Treasurer stated it would be in the region of about £200.

Councillor Saunders: It would be about half that?

The Town Clerk said as the premises were not rated the figure would have to be agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Councillor Hart asked if the Town Clerk would make it clear that under certain circumstances they would be entitled to get a reduction from the Excise Commissioners.

The Town clerk: The net annual value will be agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Councillor Fletcher asked if the Council were bound to purchase.

The Town Clerk: You have given notice that it is to be bought under the compulsory purchase order. The Licensing Justices decide what houses are redundant. It is not for the local authority to say what houses are redundant. You have to buy the Packet Boat Inn, and you have to pay the market value for it.

Councillor Saunders said it was utterly obvious that some alterations were necessary in that building to adapt it for the use of a full public house licence, which is entirely different to a club-house licence they had in mind first.

Councillor Kent: I think the Borough Surveyor can give the approximate cost.

The Borough Surveyor said details had been got out, and they provided for the alteration of cloak room. Including everything the figure was £160.

The Chairman: Do I understand that the Parks Committee have thought fit to decide as to the alterations?

Councillor Kent: A meeting of the Catering Sub-Committee was held, and the Surveyor was asked to prepare a figure.

Councillor Saunders said Alderman Hollands had suggested that no attention should be paid to the people engaged in looking after the young life of the town. His position was a peculiar one, because, he said unhesitatingly, he had seen some of the effects of a licence under municipal control on the young life of the town. The Corporation, in holding a licence and being the local authority, put the police force in an extremely delicate position. That building was in a public park, and the Home Office did not pay their quota for controlling public parks. They would not only have to pay for the cost of the licence, but for patrolling the area.

The Chairman: The building is on a police beat.

Councillor Saunders said it was a question of principle with him. Was it advisable for a local authority to enter into a trade the difficulties of which it had been admitted of the danger it carried. He suggested they wanted to look at that matter from the broader aspects. They wanted to get away from the point of view of the cost, and to consider whether they were doing their duty, particularly to the young people of Folkestone, in putting licensed premises in that particular neighbourhood or in any building owned by the Corporation. He was going to say that they would get better control, better everything, if they got a really good licensee than they would under Corporation management. He thought that was the point of view of everyone. Personally he deplored the fact that the Council were seriously considering that, for it was a business they should keep out of. They had a licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, but they had got it under safeguards, fortunately. He was never in favour of it when it was installed. There they were going to set up an ordinary public house in the ordinary accepted term. The Corporation were going to enter into the business, if they agreed with that resolution, of a licensed victualler, with all its ramifications and with all its potential dangers to the people. He was convinced it was not going to be an asset. The proper thing was to treat the licence as part of the clearance scheme. That was a business best left to private enterprise. They would be entering into serious competition with other people. Referring to the cost, looking at it from all points of view, he did not believe their profit was going to be anything much, and not enough for the Council to worry about. If they talked of it as an amenity, it was an amenity the Council should leave alone. Anything that would increase the attractions of Folkestone he was prepared to vote for, but for anything that was prejudicial to the best interests of the people it was not part of the Corporation's business to assist in facilitating something which every decent man and woman knew was not either physically or intellectually going to do any good. To his mind that was a perfectly true statement, and he was not speaking as a teetotaller. All he could say was that if they passed that resolution they must realise they were doing something which might have a detrimental effect on the young people.

Councillor Hart said Councillor Saunders had stated that he had been a holder of a licence. He wanted to ask him whether he had ever held an on-licence.

Councillor Saunders: I have made a statement that I have held a licence. That is perfectly true.

Councillor Hollands: He will not answer the question.

Councillor Chittenden said he agreed with all that Councillor Saunders had said. He was one of the Committee who got the Pavilion through the Council. He thought they were all proud of the fact that they had got it, but his enthusiasm would have been considerably less if he had thought that the Corporation would run it as a public house. If a man wanted a pint of beer it was up to him to decide for himself, but the Corporation should not be the one to tempt him to do so. He should oppose the transfer of the licence to the Pavilion.

Councillor Hughes said he was delighted with the way in which Councillor Hollands had brought that resolution, for they wanted to approach that question not in the personal spirit. They had to look at that matter from the point of view of Folkestone and the neighbourhood. He was convinced it would be a very grave step on the part of the Corporation if they decided to transfer that licence, and he thought eventually time would prove that to be true. He believed it would lower considerably the tone of the whole neighbourhood in which the Pavilion was placed if the licence was transferred there. He thought it would put the brake on and considerably retard the building of the sort of residences they desired, they needed, and wished to develop. They had got Dr. Barnardo's Home and St. Andrew's Home near, and licensed premises would not be pleasant for the inmates of those homes. He did not believe it was in the interests of any town that the municipality should run licensed premises, and he definitely disagreed with them doing so. He had had a considerable number of letters on the subject, and all those who had approached him were definitely against the suggestion. He thought the consensus of opinion was very much against than for the proposal. He felt that the Corporation had no mandate or any right to put temptation in the way of the young people in that neighbourhood, nor did he think it would be in the best interests to make it a rendezvous for the young fellows on the Camp. He had had 35 years in temperance work, and he wanted to appeal to those who had no strong feeling on the matter, and who had children of their own, to ask them whether they would like their own boy or girl frequenting that place at eleven o'clock at night when the lights were low. The Corporation should not put temptation into the lives of young people.

Councillor Bridgland, reading from a document regarding the letting of the Pavilion, said it stated that in the event of an application being made for the sale of intoxicating liquor the licence should be obtained by the Entertainments Manager. He would like to ask the Chairman of the Parks Committee if Councillor Saunders was not present when that was passed at the Parks Committee meeting, and if he was not present at the Council when it went through and he did not oppose it in any shape or form.

Councillor Saunders: That is a personal reflection on me.

The Chairman: Councillor Bridgland has asked a question, and that question has not been answered.

Councillor Saunders said he claimed the Committee's indulgence. He had a copy of that form before him, but it was the first time he had seen the form. He thought if they would look at the minutes of the meeting there was no question of any detailed statement as to what should be on the form.

The Town Clerk said if he remembered rightly it was that the own Clerk submitted draft conditions for the letting of the East Cliff Pavilion.

Councillor Saunders said he had no knowledge that it was part of the duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for a licence until his attention was drawn to the fact by Mr. Roden.

Councillor Bridgland said Councillor Saunders was at the meetings, and he had the opportunity to oppose it. Councillor Hughes had talked about the young people, and if he went to the Leas Cliff Hall he would see the young people there when it was nearly dark. Dancing went on when beer was being drunk there, and that was the first time Councillor Hughes had protested against it. He (the speaker) was strongly in favour of transferring the licence, so that any man with his wife could go into the Pavilion and have the refreshment they desired. They would be able to have that, not in a four-ale bar, but in congenial surroundings. They wanted to be consistent over that. People who were opposing that transfer would go to a dinner and order their bottle of wine, therefore showing they wished to say “I can have my bottle of wine, but you shall not have your glass of beer”.

Councillor Gadd said when he saw the minutes of the Parks Committee on that matter he rather automatically decided that he should turn the proposal down. Within an hour he was in conversation with a very close friend, and to his surprise he knew more about the matter than he. They discussed it, and he told him in all probability he should support the Parks Committee, but he was in a bit of doubt about it because he did feel he might not be doing what was right. He thought about it considerably afterwards, and he had to face up to the facts. That was what they had to do that morning. After he had faced up to the facts he came to the conclusion that given the opportunity he would have to support the Catering Sub-Committee. He realised what had made him unhappy about it. He had looked at the matter in this way. The question of the sale of alcoholic liquors was not for their decision. That was already decided by the powers who had it in their hands. The question of granting the transfer was not before them that morning. The whole question they had to decide was whether in view of the duty which they undertook to perform when they became members of that Council was they would without fear or favour consider all matters that came before them. They had built a Pavilion and the cost of any loss would have to be met from the General Rate fund. The sale of alcoholic liquors was only required for refreshment purposes.. They had not to look upon that from any biased point of view. Could they say they were dealing with all sections of the community if they called upon a section to pay for the cost or any possible loss when they denied a section of the refreshments to which they were entitled? If they decided against making the application, the effect of that was that they would say to a certain section of the community that they were people who were dissolute and not reliable – (Cries of “No”) – and not to be trusted to conduct themselves as a citizen should do inside the law. (Hear, hear) He could not get away from that fact. They had to deal impartially with all classes. The question was whether there should be a licence in that building or not was, he contended, a matter they had to leave to the Licensing Justices. He knew what he had said might cost a friendship of some years he valued very greatly, but as a representative of the public he had to support the making of the application.

Councillor Johnson said he had come to the conclusion that the licence was not necessary for the whole of the year. With their catering since September they had lost £45. The licence was to cost another £100 a year, and administration would cost them another £160. The licence might be necessary for four or six months, but it was not necessary in the winter months. He believed if they approached the golf players there would be not more than 40 percent in favour of the licence. If the residents in that neighbourhood were asked, two thirds would be against that licence, and the other third would not care whether they had it or not.

Councillor Kent said the Sub-Committee knew they were committed to buy the licence. In view of that it was their bounden duty to make the best use of it. It had been stated that morning that in all probability at some time they would have to apply for a new licence for that building, and that would be a very difficult thing to get. The Pavilion was a general utility building to supply all kinds of refreshments. He submitted intoxicating drinks in moderation was a reasonable kind of refreshment. Much had been said about the abuse of licences. Licences were not abused. Evidence from all over the country showed that the percentage of drunkenness throughout the whole of the country was brought down to the lowest possible degree. The reason for that was that the licences were not abused. Probably 20 years ago he would have been opposed to that licence, although he had been in the licensed trade for a number of years. The cost of intoxicating liquor was one reason why it was not abused. The other reason was that intoxicating liquor was of very much reduced strength to what it was 20 years ago. Brewers today were brewing light beers and very light beers (laughter) which were reasonable and quite good refreshment. Education had certainly played a wonderful part and the hours of opening had been reduced considerably. Cinemas had also taken people away from the public houses. To say that licences were abused was absolutely wrong. As Councillor Gadd had already said, it was a direct insult to the community at large to say they could not be trusted with a licence. They were not creating a new licence, but they were taking away a licence in a redundant neighbourhood and placing it where it would provide facilities for the public. He was not going to say they were going to make a huge profit, but it was really only for accommodation. No less than 150,000 games of golf had been played up to last summer on East Cliff, and that was evidence that a very large section of the public used that particular part of the cliffs, and they were entitled to refreshments of that description if they so desired it. The Pavilion was on a police beat, and no extra cost would be entailed in policing it. There was no reason why the Pavilion should not be properly controlled. It was understood that they would have one nice bar and proper service in the main building, the restaurant, so that it could be conducted on first class lines. If the Council refused to make that application they were not doing their duty to the community.

Alderman Stainer said it was only on Friday in the previous week, when an application was made to the Magistrates for an occasional licence, that he realised there was any suggestion on the part of anyone in the Corporation that the Pavilion should become a licensed house. He was so astonished when the Entertainments Manager appeared before the Magistrates and asked for a licence that he went off to the Town Clerk to enquire whether the Council had ever authorised the use of the East Cliff Pavilion as a licensed house. In doing so the Corporation minutes came into his hands, and he found what had been taking place in the Parks Committee. He saw the Committee turned down the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee. He was very sorry to find that in October last that thing was authorised by the Corporation. He maintained that that authority was obtained without the members of the Corporation realising what was involved. He looked up the minutes, and on October 3rd he found the only reference that was put before the Corporation was as follows: “Conditions of letting. The Town Clerk submitted draft conditions of letting of the East Cliff Pavilion. Resolved that the same be approved”. He might be told there was his opportunity of finding out the conditions, but he maintained it was done in such a quiet and unobtrusive way that it got through the Corporation without the matter being given due consideration. He deplored the action. The licence of the Leas Cliff Hall was obtained in a similar manner. His opinion was that it was better for everyone to abstain from taking any drink at all. Other members did not agree with him. He was very sorry indeed to think that that matter, all in the space of a week, had been brought to the public; it had hardly yet got to the public. He thought if the Committee was wise, it would not take the step of passing the resolution.

Councillor Pope said he was going to support the resolution because they were going to transfer the licence to another place, where they were not going to create drunkenness.

The Chairman said with regard to the restrictions on the Leas Cliff Hall, he would like to say it was a full public hotel licence which belonged to the Rose Hotel. The Corporation desired a stipulation put upon that by the Magistrates. He did not suggest the two buildings were not comparable.

Councillor Hart said a great many things had been said for and against the resolution. A great many arguments had been used and facts given, which were not true, against the trade in which he was engaged. Had the Council considered the vested interests that were likely to come forward? No-one had said anything about that. If a brewer's firm, as had happened in a town in close proximity, liked they could get a full licence in that neighbourhood by the removal of a full licence from an obscure neighbourhood. They might say it could not happen on the East Cliff. Well, there was nothing to prevent it. Licensing Justices encouraged the improvement of premises. “I am only an off licence holder”, he added, “but if you hear some of the remarks made to me when people on East Cliff come in and ask for a drink, you would be surprised. I will tell some of them if you like. (Cries of “Don't”) Well they complain most bitterly.

The Town Clerk, asked for the resolution, said it was to the effect that when the Packet Boat Inn had been purchased by the Corporation they should take the necessary steps to apply to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Councillor Saunders: A full public house licence?

Councillor Hart: Yes, unless you put some restrictions on it.

Alderman Hollands said he would suggest, and hoped, that there would be a proviso preventing drink being served for consumption off the premises.

The resolution was then put, and the voting was as follows: For, 17; Against, 10.

The Chairman said the resolution was carried.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1935.

Editorial.

The recommendation of the members of the Town Council to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which the Corporation has to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to the East Cliff Pavilion, has been a topic of much discussion during the past week, and a good deal of resentment has been aroused against the action of a contemporary in trying to get people to vote “Yea” or “Nay” concerning the matter. In announcing their suggestion, our contemporary stated last Saturday “We desire, if possible, that the opinions expressed by our readers shall be unbiased, and we do not wish to be open to the charge that we have in any way persuaded them as to their decision”. Just see how our contemporary wishes that its readers shall be unbiased. On February 9th, in writing on this matter, the leader was headed “An Unnecessary Licence”. In the course of this, apparently the same writer who wishes his readers shall be unbiased, wrote “We hope that there will be a unanimous decision at this meeting of the General Purposes Committee not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable. In our opinion it is entirely unnecessary for a licence to be obtained for this building”. In view of such statements, of which the majority of the members of the General Purposes Committee took but little notice, can our contemporary say that it has not endeavoured in any way to persuade people in making a decision on the matter? It has already shown that it is biased on the matter, and it is endeavouring to bolster up the opinions expressed in its columns by a method of voting which could and will not, I venture to suggest, have the slightest weight with those in authority, whether the figures be in favour of the transfer or not. No fair indication could be obtained of the people's opinions in such a manner. But there is a touch of comedy in connection with this matter, for even with those who have the controlling interests in our contemporary there seems to be a diversity of opinion. A member of the firm, speaking at the annual dinner of the Master Bakers' Association, in proposing the toast of the Association in the absence of the Mayor, said “Deputising for the Mayor, it is only proper that I should outline the policy I should adopt as Mayor. It would include the purchase of the foreshore, licensed premises on the East Leas”. There is, I think, no need to pursue the matter much further, except to say that our contemporary opposed the building of the East Cliff Pavilion as it now stands, and had the Council followed the advice it offered when the scheme was first submitted to the Council, the building which now adorns the East Leas would not have been erected. The members of the Council paid but little regard to the criticisms of our contemporary on that occasion. They had what our contemporary then lacked, a true vision of what was needed on the East Cliff.

Folkestone Express 2 March 1935.

Editorial.

Last week we referred to the proposal of the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council to apply for the licence associated with the Packet Boat Inn, which the town has to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. In doing so, we commented on the fact that our contemporary was endeavouring to take a vote upon the subject in order to bolster up its opposition, strongly expressed in its columns on February 9th, a date previous to the meeting of the members of the Council. Our contemporary stated “We hope that there will be a unanimous decision not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable”. The members of the Council, however, decided to proceed with the proposal, therefore they clearly indicated that they did not have any regard of our contemporary's opinion. Following our comments on Friday last week, our contemporary devotes a leader to our attitude. This leader was headed “A Dismal Wail”, and surely never did a heading more aptly describe what followed, for it was the dismal wail of a writer who could not answer the plain statement of fact contained in our note on the subject: In fact no effort was made to deal with the subject, but it was a tirade against the Express, and showed that we had, to use a vulgarism, completely rattled our contemporary. There is a saying in certain legal quarters, not those associated with the highest traditions of the Bar – that when counsel knows he has a poor case and is losing, then his only hope is to abuse and try to sling mud at his opponent. Our contemporary, by its article, shows that it is well versed in such tactics. We are classed as small fry and it was suggested that we had no right to express an opinion on a subject, which is quite an important one in municipal affairs. We do not want advice, nor do we seek it, from our contemporary, but we would point out to it that it is asking even the smallest ratepayer to vote, therefore it is hoping to get support for its views from “small fry”. We do not doubt that they will even accept votes from Boy Scouts and Girl Guides if they wish to record them, but the voting will not have the slightest effect, we are sure, on the members of the Council. Our contemporary tries to make a point that our opinions do not receive consideration. We can quote many instances of where the opinions of our contemporary were disregarded by those in authority, as was the case when the matter of the licence came before the members of the Council. Two might be mentioned. Our contemporary opposed the building of the Leas Cliff Hall, and also the building of the present East Cliff Pavilion. The Express advocated both buildings being erected. These two halls are now amongst the chief amenities of Folkestone. Our contemporary described us as small fry, so we might well suppose that it considers itself “the big fish”, and, in that event, it's last week's leader should have been headed “A Dismal Whale”.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday confirmed the decision of the General Purposes Committee to make application to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, when it is taken over by the Corporation. Not only was the majority obtained in Committee maintained, but it was more decisive than on the previous occasion. In the discussion on the matter it was made quite clear by those in support of the application for the transfer that it was not intended the Pavilion should have what is generally known as a public house licence. A member of the deputation of the clergy in his speech referred to cafes on the Continent, and it on that principle that the Committee entrusted with the East Cliff Pavilion should consider the matter. No-one in Folkestone wants to turn the Pavilion into a public house, and there would be considerable opposition to that being done, and the Committee should be as strong as anyone on that point. There is very little doubt that they will ask for restrictions to be imposed, and the Folkestone Corporation should be able to show that they can manage licensed premises equally as well as other Corporations who have similar places under their charge.

Council Meeting.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Town Council confirmed the resolution passed by the General Purposes Committee two weeks ago that they should make application that the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which they have to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion, by a great majority than in the Committee, 22 members voting for it, against 11.

A deputation of clergy and ministers placed their views before the Council, the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, the Rev. J.A. Middleton, and the Rev. C.H. Scott being the speakers.

Councillor Saunders asked for permission to introduce the deputation and to present a memorial in connection with the matter.

Alderman Gurr moved, and Councillor Bridgland seconded, that such permission should be granted, and the resolution was carried unanimously.

Councillor Saunders, in introducing the deputation, read the memorial which they had come to support, and which was as follows:- “Memorial presented to the Town Council of Folkestone by representatives of the Christian Churches in Folkestone with reference to the proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. 1: The deputation, which the Council are asked to receive represents practically the whole of the Christian Churches in Folkestone. We respectfully urge you, before you come to any final decision, to bear in mind that the question of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion has not been submitted to the ratepayers, and the Council has no authority from the ratepayers to apply for the transfer of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. 2: The Corporation golf course, tea house, etc., is a distinct attraction to the neighbourhood. We are convinced, however, that the sale of liquors is not likely to be a desirable attraction. 3: We are convinced that the business of a licensed victualler is one that the Corporation, with all its many activities, can well leave to the responsibility of the individual. 4: We suggest that the Corporation should surrender the licence on the ground of redundancy in the Radnor Street area – as in the rebuilt area the resident population will have seriously decreased through curtailment of housing accommodation. In the area there are still three public houses, so it cannot be argued that this one is necessary”.

The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden said he first wished to express his thanks to the Mayor and the members of the Council for their willingness to receive that deputation. They were all pleased to see the Mayor in the chair and glad to know he was restored to health and fully recovered from his illness. The deputation represented a large section of the community of Folkestone. They did not consider themselves as being the only religious denominations, but they represented many denominations – he thought all the denominations, he hoped. First of all, he wished to say they objected to the transference of a licence to a place where it was not really required or desired by the neighbourhood. He had some justification for saying that. He knew there had been a canvass, as far as he could gather, of the immediate neighbourhood of the Pavilion, but he thought that the people would not be in favour of having a licensed house there as they would consider it somewhat detrimental to the neighbourhood. Secondly, there weighed with them that it was proposed to transfer a licence to a place which might lose very much of its attractiveness if it was done. The Pavilion was an extraordinary place. He was speaking of his own personal delight. They could go up to the headland there and have before them the sea, the sky, and that grand headland. It would be a thousand pities if anything were done to detract from that glorious spot. He thought if he were to take a visitor to any part of Folkestone where they would have an appreciation of what Folkestone stood for, and for seeing something they could enjoy, he would as soon take him to that place as any. Might he say one word of compliment to those who had designed that most attractive building which had been placed there. It seemed to him it was just the kind of building to attract everyone there and enhance its amenities. In a growing residential district, they knew how extraordinarily fast building had been going on there, and it was essential that they should not have any influence that might become detrimental to its character, or in any sort of a way might prove an annoyance such, as he might say, a fully licensed house might become. Having said that, might he go a step further and say it seemed to them no sufficient reason had yet been given to the public to justify the transference of the licence. So they would ask the Council to consider that matter seriously. They knew the Council had a licence on its hands. That was no ground for the transference of that licence to an unsuitable site. They did ask the Council to allow that to weight with them and that they should lose whatever it might be if it might be detrimental to Folkestone. He would go a point further. Supposing they said they had decided on that matter having thought it well over, he would ask them to say that what they stated would have some weight with them. If the Council felt that that licensed house was really needed they should see that the management would be under other management than that of the Corporation itself, and then they would have some guarantee that the public authority was on the side of the public, and the public would have a guarantee that whoever was the licensee would have an inspector or an authority over them that would ensure right and sound management of the licensed house. His brethren might not agree with what he was now going to say. He had lived a good deal abroad – in Italy, Germany, and France – and it had always seemed to him one of the great attractions was the fact that they had ordinary cafes. They might say their climate was against such cafes, but what had struck him most about them was that people could go to those places, and inside or outside have their lager beer or whatever it was. Supposing the Council were determined in proceeding, he would ask that it would be a beer licence for that place. That was his own opinion and not an outside opinion. He trusted they would allow those circumstances he had mentioned to weigh with them before a final decision was reached.

The Rev. J.A. Middleton said he would like to associate himself with the remarks made by the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, and to apologise, in particular, for the absence of Dr. Carlile, who would have been there but for an engagement in town. He had been asked to speak on behalf of the Free Churches in particular, and to say that they agreed almost entirely with the remarks made by Canon Holden. There were just one or two pints he would like to stress. The occasion for seeking a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion seemed to have arisen from that licence in the Radnor Street area being surrendered or being bought. He supposed they would not have considered a new licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. It seemed as though the fact that they had had to buy that licence had led them to ask that it should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion, and the hope at the back of it was that they should gain revenue. It seemed to him a rather poor motive for urging that that licence was required. The other point he would stress was that it was an unfortunate thing in his judgement, and also in that of his friends, that a licence should be in the name of the Corporation, because there could not be just the same oversight as there would be in the case of a private licensee, because their officials were somewhat hampered in giving that attention and perhaps in making complaints in a way that they would not obtain if the licence was in private hands. The other point he would urge was that they were representing a large body of churchgoing people in Folkestone who participated unwillingly in the management of licensed premises and very strongly did they object to a licence being taken out by that Corporation.

The Rev. C.H. Scott said he was not in any way opposing the legitimate drinking facilities to any class of the community. Not only representing the people as he did, but as a resident in the East Ward, he protested against the transfer of the licence to the Pavilion. They did not want an ordinary public house at that spot. He asked the Council to consider their neighbours and to ask themselves conscientiously, if they lived up there, would they welcome that licence?

Councillor Pope said reference had been made to having a licensed house there. He would like to know if the deputation thought it would be an advantage to have a public house up there if they did not have that licence transferred.

The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden: Personally I should prefer that.

Councillor Bridgland said he would like to know if the deputation had heard or seen anything recently at the Leas Cliff Hall to which they could object.

The Vicar: I cannot answer that. It is the general security to which we refer. The public would be more satisfied if the licence holder were under the observation and the care and control of the Council rather than the Council taking the licence.

Alderman King-Turner was proceeding to speak when members interrupted.

The Mayor suggested to him that it was not the time to voice his views; he should only ask questions.

Councillor Mackie asked whether the clergymen present were expressing their own views or had they taken any vote in their congregations on the matter at all?

The Vicar said he had taken a considerable measure of views in the Parish Church, and he found a large number were opposed to that particular transfer. He could only speak for them.

Councillor Kent: Are the people residents of the East Cliff or other parts of the town?

The Vicar: Some are residents of the district. One was a newcomer and he said he did not know that he should have come had he known there was to be a licence there.

Alderman Franks said there was one point which should be made perfectly clear to the deputation. It arose from the remarks of one speaker. It should be made clear once and for all the Folkestone Town Council was not the Police Authority. The Watch Committee were the statutory authority. The other point was that they were not transferring a licence that morning. They made the application, if the Council so decided, to the proper statutory independent authority, quite independent of Folkestone. An outside Bench will have to consider it.

Alderman Hollands: I should like to ask whether he would not think it would be a better place to have a nice glass of beer in the Pavilion than in the old Packet Boat? Surely it would not be better in the Packet Boat?

The Vicar: I say so.

The Mayor said he wished to thank the deputation for the very moderate and reasoned way they had stated their case. They might rely on the Council that what they had said would receive the utmost consideration from the members.

The Town Clerk said there were four communications. One was from the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club, and was as follows:- “Dear Sirs, At the annual general meeting of the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club held on the 21st February, I was instructed to convey to your Council this expression of our members' appreciation of the facilities afforded us by the East Cliff Pavilion. At our last home match of 1934 we availed ourselves of the first possible opportunity of using the Pavilion and were completely satisfied by the quality of the refreshments and by the courtesy and excellent service given to us. I have also to express our gratification that the General Purposes Committee have recommended by 17 votes to ten the granting of a licence to the Pavilion. If this recommendation is approved we shall be eager to avail ourselves of the opportunity or returning to our visiting clubs in an establishment under the control of the Council the hospitality shown to us when we are “away”. Yours faithfully, V.W. Hillier, Hon. Secretary”.

The next communication was from Mr. R.G. Hook, of East Lea, Wear Bay Crescent. It was as follows:- “Dear Sir, As a resident and owner of property on the East Cliff, I strongly object to the proposed transfer of a licence to sell intoxicating liquor at the East Cliff Pavilion. I consider the facilities for drinking are quite sufficient in Folkestone generally and it would be wise to leave this part free to those who can appreciate beauty without needing stimulants”.

The next letter was from Mr. Hugh H. Chapman, who wrote from Croydon: “51, Windmill Road, W. Croydon, Surrey. Dear Sir, As a great lover of Folkestone, and a regular holiday-keeper in your neighbourhood, I have been following with great interest the report in the local press of the discussions over the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. I cannot understand anyone opposing this suggestion who looks squarely at the position. Most of the summer holidaymakers use the sands beyond the Fishmarket, and are at once isolated from the amenities which should be theirs. There is absolutely nowhere where one can take a lady for alcoholic refreshment without going back into the town. To close one of those horrible little beer houses should be in itself an asset and to open a modern refreshment bar should prove a great step forward and a definite boon to users of the East Cliff. Surely it is not a retrograde step to follow the present enlightened national movement to brighten public houses. The fact that the licence would be controlled by the Council should be an added safeguard against any possible abuse of alcohol. Personally I do not think we have any need to worry about our young folks as they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. I certainly hope that Folkestone will allow this wonderful opportunity to add to the amenities of what is, in my opinion, the finest South Coast resort. I am, faithfully yours, Hugh S. Chapman”.

Then there was the following petition: “We, the undersigned ratepayers and owners of property in the immediate vicinity of the East Cliff Pavilion, cordially support the action of the majority of the members of the Council at their General Purposes Committee meeting, in recommending the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the above Pavilion. A considerable number of your petitioners cater for visitors, and we know from their remarks how desirable they think it is that some arrangement should be made for the sale of intoxicating drink there, seeing that the nearest public house is practically half a mile away. Under all the circumstances we wish the proposal every success”.

The Town Clerk said the petition was signed by 127 tenants and 88 owners of property in the vicinity of the new Pavilion. A large number came from East Cliff, Dudley Road, Wear Bay Road, Wear Bay Crescent, Stanley Road, and Segrave Road.

Alderman Hollands: All immediately adjacent.

The Mayor said he recognised the signatures of well-known people on East Cliff on the petition.

Councillor Kent: two signatures have not been taken from one house.

Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment “That paragraph 21 in the minutes be not approved, and upon the acquisition of the Packet Boat Inn the licence in respect thereof be dealt with in accordance with Section 14 (2) of the Housing Act, 1930”. He said that meant, in plain language, that they should make an application to the Compensation Authority to assess the compensation value, if any, of that licence. It seemed to him that that was not a question so much as whether people in Warren Road, Thanet Gardens, or Hasborough Road – (Councillor Hart: Or Sandgate Road) – are in favour of a licence, but it was a question of whether they, as a public body, were engaging in an undertaking of such a nature was of public benefit. Councillor Bridgland put a question to the deputation when it was in the Council Chamber a few minutes ago. He (Councillor Saunders) was going to say quite unhesitatingly and with the knowledge and responsibility that in his opinion the licence was a matter that was best left to the control of the individual owner. (Cries of “Hear, hear”) He said that because he had had something to do with trying to direct the control. (Alderman Hollands: You made a mess of it)

Councillor Saunders: If Alderman Hollands had taken as much interest in the Leas Cliff Hall as he has done in this matter, and if we had had the benefit of his knowledge and the wisdom he had imbibed in licensed premises, he would have added to our wisdom in the Leas Cliff Hall. Because of that lack of service to the community, some of us have been left to do what we thought best for the town. Proceeding, he said he was convinced they were putting something forward that could be best left alone, which would give the opportunity to the young people, and he spoke with some knowledge of young people, having been the happy father of six, that they could best leave alone and best keep out of their way the consumption of alcoholic beverages. He was not a teetotaller, but he did hold that opinion very strongly because of what he saw and what he knew, if they, as a local authority, should do something of which in after years they would not be very proud. He suggested if that licence was to be there and was a huge success financially it would be something they would not be proud of because it would lead to a good deal of drinking and conduct which they would not be proud of as a local authority. If it was not a financial success and became something of which they would not be proud, it was going to be a considerable financial loss to the Corporation. He suggested they should weigh the matter up very carefully and each of them give a vote as their conscience guided them, not as they may have certain friends expecting them to vote, but in the real and best interests of the borough.

Alderman Stainer seconded the resolution.

Alderman Gurr asked what was the proposal made under the Housing Act for surrendering the licence and what they got for it.

Councillor Saunders said the Town Clerk, at the meeting of the General Purposes Committee, said they had the option of offering that licence for a valuation. When they referred it to the Compensation Authority they might put a value on it and they might not. It would mean another thousand or two to the Radnor Street scheme. A thousand or two on the Radnor Street scheme in comparison with the harm they were going to do on the East Cliff did not matter.

Alderman Gurr wanted to know what it meant.

The Mayor: It means referring it to the Compensation Authority for compensation.

Alderman Stainer said he would like the Corporation to look at that question not from the point of view of finance only. They must take a more grave line than that of possible return on their money. The Council were the custodians of the good government of the borough in which they lived. The way they treated the public, the facilities they gave them for good life or otherwise, were the governing factors that ought to influence them in what they did. It was quite a secondary matter whather they got any return for their money or not, but it was much more important to him that the borough authority should be engaged in the liquor trade. He was sure the views of the deputation, as put forward by Mr. Middleton, were quite in keeping with the sentiments of a vast number of people in the borough that they did not wish to be associated with the sale of intoxicating drink. The question of the loss on the licence had been discussed, but the value of the conduct of the public was vastly more important than the value of the licence. He would be quite willing for the value of that public house to be reckoned in the cost of the clearance of Radnor Street rather than it be transferred to any other part of the borough. Some people said that the enjoyment of the East Cliff and the enjoyment of sports up there would be enhanced by the sale of intoxicating liquor to the people who went up there. His life was beginning to be a long one, and he would like to say emphatically that his experience was that the enjoyments of life were enhanced more by restraint and complete abstinence from intoxicating drink. He thought they could not give better pleasure to the public by being retailers of intoxicating liquor, which, in his opinion, and that of many other people, curtailed the enjoyment of life rather than enhanced it. He was sure the Corporation would do well if they looked at that thing from an idealistic point of view rather than a point of view of finance. He had great pleasure in seconding the amendment, not from the point of view whether they were going to lose any money, but for the good of the public. He had been Chairman of the After-School Welfare, and it would be a lamentable thing if he was the first one to introduce to the young life of the borough the habit of taking intoxicating drink. If the Corporation undertook that, the Corporation could not have clean hands in the matter of such an important thing as the lives of the young people.

Councillor Chittenden said he should like to support Councillor Saunders. He was in much the same position as he was, and had six children of his own, and he should have more confidence in them if there was not a licence than if there was a licence. He was there to represent his opinion and his conviction of what was best for the young people of Folkestone and the coming generation of Folkestone. He also thought he would not be doing his duty if he did not vote against those arrangements for the transfer of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It differed from the Leas Cliff Hall in that they did not have control of the licence up there as they did at the Leas Cliff Hall. Councillor Saunders said it was not to the advantage of the young people up there that they should have that licence. The licence at the East Cliff was going to be exactly like an ordinary public house, and the facilities for drinking would be greater. If anyone asked to put up an ordinary public house on the East Cliff it would not be granted, and it was only now the Corporation had thought anything about it.

Councillor Lillie said it was imperative he should say something from the point of view of the Health Committee. It was their money, and he was rather against the point of view that he had heard, and was rather aghast at some of the expressions to which he had listened. The money to which he referred was that which they would have to pay for the purchase of the licence. Canon Hyla Holden said they should let that go. Councillor Saunders said he would sooner see another £2,000 put on the Radnor Street clearance scheme. The re-housing scheme was a philanthropic movement and as worthy a one as the fight against intemperance. He thought that they were being pushed out in the cold and forgotten in that matter. If they increased the cost of the Radnor Street clearance scheme it was obvious that housing scheme would be curtailed. They disliked very much to see the cost of the clearance scheme being increased in that way. The re-housing was a necessary thing, and it was as essential from the moral, health, and spiritual point of view as was temperance. The Council was in danger of losing its balance and its perspective. It was unfortunate that two philanthropic movements like that should be in competition with each other, but he was sure he must say those temperance people, however reasonably temperate they might be in their actions, were quite definitely stepping over the mark. They were getting up a petition trying to get people to sign a paper and authorising a London solicitor to appear on their behalf before the Justices of the Peace when they were considering the removals of the Jubilee Inn, Oddfellows Arms, and Ship Inn. What had that to do with that question? If they succeeded in that it would simply wreck the Radnor Street scheme. It was a wrecking movement. Why should they do that sort of thing? There was not the slightest chance of them succeeding. They were hostile to the Committee and they were unreasonable people. As long as they worked for the suppression of drunkenness he took his hat off to them, but they seemed to be unable to keep within the lines. They were becoming prohibitionists and it was filling him with horror. There were many licensed victuallers who were doing a great deal more to prevent drunkenness than many people in the temperance movement. They had seen some of the greatest disasters in the history of the world due to those meritorious virtue movements running to extremes. They would not get within the lines.

Alderman King-Turner said he hoped the Council would give a good majority on favour of the licence. He had lived in that neighbourhood for many years and it seemed to him that anything for the East Ward always seemed to have such a hard struggle to get through. The boarding and lodging house people were having a very hard time and why should not they have the same facilities there as they had in the west end? They were entitled to them. He wanted everyone to be open and broadminded. In those days they had got to be. A good many statements which he had in his pocket had been sent to him in letters, that he had been sanctioning couples sitting out there on the East Cliff. They would not be allowed to drink out there. They had thousands of visitors up there, and the cry was “We wish we had a place for a quiet drink”. They were entitled to some of the privileges they had in the west end.

Th Mayor said the matter would come before the Licensing Justices, who would place restrictions on the licence.

Councillor Saunders: You have to ask for restrictions.

Councillor Barfoot: Is this a full public house licence with facilities both inside and outside the building?

The Town Clerk: I have not seen the licence, but I understand it is a full licence, on and off.

Councillor Fletcher: They could go there and take drink away?

Councillor Kent: It is for us to decide whether it should be an off licence.

Councillor Barfoot: If this licence is granted you will, when applying, as for restrictions? That is my point.

Councillor Hart: Yes.

Councillor Barfoot said: “I have read the newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Council when I was absent, and when I saw the names of those who voted for Alderman Hollands' resolution I was amazed. For many years it has been one of the principles of the Socialist Party to municipalise public houses. It is surprising to see other members of the Council dancing to the tune of the Socialists and voting for extending municipal trading in drink. Reading the speeches of our Socialist colleagues, it is seen that they are not very consistent. My friend, Mr. Gadd, for apart from his politics I esteem him highly, is anxious to put the onus of transferring the licence on the Magistrates. He must know he cannot shirk his responsibility in this way. He, like the rest of the Council, is responsible for the effect of his vote today. Alderman Hollands is even more inconsistent. In his speech he stressed the point that the people should be trusted not to abuse the facilities for drinking. At the end of the proceedings he pointed out that there is a safeguard, as the licence is not an off licence, and he said “People would not be able to go to the Pavilion, buy a bottle of beer, and then take it out with them on to the cliff. He would strongly oppose anything of that sort”. How can he reconcile this with his previous plea that you can trust the people, none but himself knows. According to the worthy Alderman, people can be trusted to drink a bottle of beer inside a building, but they cannot be trusted to drink a bottle of beer under the vault of Heaven. The late Councillor Dallas Brett and I opposed the erection of the Pavilion because in our opinion it was too large and too expensive. It was never mentioned in the minutes of the Parks Committee or in the debates in the Council that the building was intended for the sale of intoxicating drinks. Alderman Franks told the Council the other day that it was always intended to sell intoxicating drinks in the Pavilion. The present and past Chairmen of the Parks Committee may think they were justified in not mentioning this interesting fact at the time, but it was not fair to the members of the Council. I remember distinctly the present Chairman of the Parks Committee telling the Council that the erection of a Pavilion was a business proposition, as it would pay. Evidently municipal finance is not one of his strong points, as last year the loss was £958; and with a drink licence this year the estimated loss is over £1,600. Have the supporters of this proposal have any idea what the licence will cost the Corporation? I think not. The Town Clerk told the Council that it was a full public house licence and the price asked for the building and the licence was £4,693. The licence is therefore worth £4,000. It would be better for the Council to surrender the licence and get the compensation money than to transfer it to the Pavilion, for the following reasons:- Alderman Hollands said he was opposed to drink being consumed off the premises. If this is the half-hearted way you are going to transact municipal trading in drink it can never pay. Last year, Johniie Walker gave an exhibition of the Test matches. Thousands of people went to that show, but according to Alderman Hollands you could not supply these people with drinks while they were watching the play. Do the municipal traders intend to abstain from doing a large trade of that sort in the future? Without you intend to do all the business that comes in your way during the summer, the Pavilion can never pay its way. Thousands of people come by motor buses during the summer. A large proportion go for a drink directly they arrive. Are you going to attract these customers? If you do attract them, respectable middle-class people will not use the Pavilion, or want to live in the neighbourhood. I am opposed to municipal trading, but specially municipal trading in drink. I am not a teetotaller, and I think it would be a mistake if people thought that this proposal was only opposed by teetotallers. One of my objections to the transfer of this licence is that it will depreciate the value of property in the neighbourhood. I believe I am the only member of the Council who has served on a local authority in another part of England, and also I am the only member of the Council who has seen, from close quarters, the growth of a town of 75,000 inhabitants into a great city containing a quarter of a million people. I know that no local authority, no syndicate, or private person, who were developing a residential district for the middle classes would allow a public house to be built. It is axiomatical that a licensed house in a middle class district depreciates the value of property. I oppose the resolution also because in the long run it will adversely affect the rateable value of property in the vicinity of the Pavilion. At the present time houses are being built and in a short time the revenue in the form of rates will be considerable. Why retard this increase in revenue or stop it altogether? Even if you make money out of the sale of drink you will lose ten times as much in the loss of rateable value in that district”.

Alderman Hollands described an interview he had had with a lady who called upon him asking him to sign a petition against the licence and who made allegations concerning the Leas Cliff Hall. Proceeding, he said he believed Councillor Saunders was speaking his own mind that morning.

Councillor Saunders: Are you making insinuations against me?

Alderman Hollands: My insinuations are as correct as yours.

Councillor Saunders: Mine were based on facts.

Alderman Hollands: It is my opinion you are not a free man this morning. When I go away I cannot afford to pay for a big lunch. If I drop into a place for a lunch I have a bit of bread and cheese, a pennyworth of pickles on a plate, and a pint of beer. That is a beautiful lunch. (Laughter) Alderman Stainer has spoken about intoxicating drink affecting the enjoyment, but as he says he has not tasted it how can he speak about it?

Councillor Kent said he had listened very carefully to everything that had been said that morning, but there had been nothing to cause him to alter his opinion. He welcomed the deputation because he thought they were entitled to express their views on behalf of the people they represented. He wanted to answer one or two points raised by the deputation and other speakers. One was that the question of the transfer had not been submitted to the ratepayers. Was the licence of the Leas Cliff Hall submitted to the ratepayers? It was dealt with by the Council in the same way. One point he took exception to, and that was that they were practically told that the Corporation could not be trusted with a licence, and that they were not in a position to control a licence. That was entirely wrong. It was a direct insult to the Council to say that they could not be trusted to control a licence. There were members who had been interested in licences for quite a number of years, and there was not one black spot against the conduct of those licences. It was said it would be far better in the hands of the Corporation. It was further stated that it would be an ordinary public house, but that was entirely in the hands of the Corporation to say, and also to say how they should conduct their business. A private individual was in a licensed house to get his living out of it, but they, as a Corporation, should not endeavour to transfer that licence for the purpose of making huge profits, but it should be purely a matter of providing facilities for both residents and visitors who used the Pavilion. The nearest licensed house was half a mile away. Then there was the question of vested interests to consider. It was possible, and highly probable, that something else would be done on East Cliff. There were certainly people who were waiting their opportunity, and their intention would be to build a large residential club, and it would be one of the best pubs in the district. If the Corporation had that licence up there they would probably prevent anything like that happening. They would agree that it would be far more dangerous than having a licence like that in the hands of the Corporation. He suggested that if they made the application for the transfer they could ask for one condition, and that was that it should be a licence to serve liquor to be consumed on the premises only, so that would prevent any danger of liquor being taken out. With regard to the petition in favour of the application being made, he could say it was really bona fide and one of the strongest that had ever been presented there. Every signature on it could be verified. He hoped the members would again vote for making the application.

The Mayor said there was not the slightest reason why the Council should not conduct equally as well as any individual a fully licensed house. They were looked upon as model employers, so surely they could see nothing should occur if the Licensing Magistrates granted a licence that could in the slightest degree be detrimental to the very best interests of the town. They were all concerned in the welfare of the town and he yielded to no-one with regard to the safeguards for young people. To suggest that such a licence was going to be the means of causing intemperance was a most intemperate statement to make. He had not the slightest doubt that if the application was made the Committee would ask for safeguards to be imposed.

The voting on the amendment resulted as follows: For, 11; Against, 22.

The recommendation of the General Purposes Committee was then approved.

Alderman Stainer said in the event of the Packet Boat licence being transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion he would like to know whether the Committee would take the necessary steps to curtail the licence to a degree that it should not be exercised as a full public house.

The Mayor: That is a matter for the Parks Committee to consider.

Councillor Kent: On behalf of the Committee, I can promise it will be taken into consideration.

Folkestone Express 29 June 1935.

Tuesday, June 25th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Mr. F. Seager.

Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks Superintendent of the Folkestone Corporation, was granted a protection order in respect of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, which it was stated had been purchased by the Corporation in connection with the slum clearance area in the district. The outgoing tenant was Mr. J. Sirrett.

Mr. Rutley Mowll made the application. He said he asked the Magistrates to grant a protection order to Mr. Roden, who was probably well known to the Magistrates. Mr. Sirrett was giving up possession that day. He made a formal application that the Magistrates would waive the condition with regard to the seven days' notice being given. The notice was given to the Police on Friday concerning the application and they offered no objection.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said there should be a seven days' notice, but a shorter notice might be taken by the Magistrates.

Inspector Pittock said the notice was served on the police on Friday.

The Chairman: There has been nothing sprung on the authorities?

The Clerk: No.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: It was the earliest possible moment after the purchase was completed.

The Chairman: Then the property has been bought by the Corporation. The purchase is completed and this is an application now in respect of the change of tenancy?

Mr. Rutley Mowll: That is so.

The Chairman said he did not think the Magistrates required any testimonials in respect of Mr. Roden. That was a protection order for which Mr. Mowll asked in order that an application could be made at the next transfer sessions.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: We shall ask for the full transfer to be completed on July 10th.

The Chairman said the Magistrates granted the protection order in the name of Mr. Roden.

The Magistrates also excused the attendance of Mr. Sirrett at the transfer sessions when the application for the transfer would be made.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1935.

Local News.

Seven Kent Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional Division on Wednesday sat at the Folkestone Police Court and heard the application of the Folkestone Town Council for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, held for the last fortnight by Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks Superintendent, to the East Cliff Pavilion, and to be in the name of Mr. Roden. There was considerable opposition, and the Magistrates, after considering their decision in private for close upon half an hour, announced that they granted the removal of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion on the understanding that all intoxicating liquors sold should be consumed on the premises as shown on the plan.

The Magistrates were Col. E.R. Wayland, Major J.G. Welch, Mr. J.J. Clayson, Col. D'Esterre, Mr. J. Cross, The Mayor of Hythe. And Judge Terrell, K.C.

Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared in support of the Corporation's application.

Opposition to the application came from Mr. B.H. Bonniface for the licensee in the immediate vicinity and the Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. P. Philcox, who represented the Folkestone Temperance Council, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile, representing the clergy and ministers and a number of ratepayers.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Roden, who had been granted protection to sell at the Packet Boat Inn by the Bench of Licensing Justices. The application was for a special removal of that licence as a fully licensed house to the East Cliff Pavilion, which was about 800 yards from the site of the Packet Boat Inn. The Corporation purchased the Packet Boat Inn and two adjoining cottages for £4,300, one of the properties included in the Folkestone Radnor Street No 1 Confirmation Order, 1934. As a matter of fact those premises actually formed part of a new road, so that it would absolutely necessary for them to be pulled down. The East Cliff Pavilion was built recently by the Corporation, and cost between £7,000 and £8,000 to erect. It was situate, as the Bench probably knew, on the East Cliff, and was a most beautiful building. The present construction was to be very little altered. There was a large refreshment hall, the centre of which was used also for dancing, and on the sea side of it were the premises that were going to be altered. That portion was at present used as a hat room and would be the bar. They would see the counter in it from the plan. A portion of the lavatory was going to be converted into a store. The public would have access there to the entrances shown on the side of the premises and as shown on the interior of the premises. The premises he was asking to be licensed were shown on the plan coloured pink.

The Corporation, having purchased the Packet Boat Inn for such a large sum of money, thought they ought to use it for the best advantage of the ratepayers, and therefore they were asking for that special removal under section 24 of the Licensing Act, 1910. The Magistrates had to consider two points. One was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person. They had already heard that the licence had been granted to Mr. Roden. He was the Parks Superintendent for the Borough, and one could hardly imagine a more suitable person to hold a licence. The second point was whether the premises were fit and convenient for the purpose under sub-section 4 of section 24, which dealt with the special removal of a licence.

He was going to ask them to insert a clause in regard to the licence, and that was that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises. The present licence was a full licence, and the licensee could sell on or off the premises. It was thought, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be better for that condition to be inserted, and he at once said the Corporation was only too willing for that to be done.

There were no licensed premises anywhere near those premises. The Packet Boat Inn was roughly 800 yards from the East Cliff Pavilion. The East Cliff Tavern was 700 yards away, the Lifeboat, North Street, 820 yards, the Jubilee, Radnor Street, 820 yards, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, 830 yards, the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, 870 yards, Royal Oak, North Street, 780 yards, the Raglan, Dover Road, 920 yards, the Martello, Dover Road, 930 yards, the Railway Tavern, Dover Road, 1,020 yards, and the Swan, Dover Road, 1,080 yards. The nearest licensed premises to those premises was thus the East Cliff Tavern, which was 700 yards away. He did not know whether the Bench were acquainted with the premises. They were in a part of the town that had recently been developed. People in the season went there in thousands; there was a large stretch of sand nearby. Very great inconvenience had been suffered in the past by people not being able to get any reasonable refreshment. He asked that they would grant the application subject to that condition.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, said the Packet Boat was one of the properties in the Order, and there were three other licensed premises in the area, and the Corporation acquired the Packet Boat compulsorily. They gave for the Packet Boat Inn and two adjoining cottages £4,300 as the compensation. A very considerable part of that figure represented the value of the licence. The premises known as the Packet Boat Inn were to be pulled down under the Housing Act for public purposes. It was in the view of the Corporation that they would be lacking in their public duty if they did not make the fullest use of the licence, and they came to the conclusion that it should be removed to the East Cliff Pavilion. They had a licence in regard to the Leas Cliff Hall subject to special conditions. The East Cliff Pavilion was situated on the East Cliff and was erected at a cost of between seven and eight thousand pounds. It was replete with every comfort for persons requiring alcoholic refreshment. It had been found that there was a considerable drawback, particularly in regard to luncheons, when people found they could not have intoxicating liquors. There had been many complaints and enquiries. In a place like Folkestone it was rather an anomaly that a hall like that should not have the opportunity to provide the public with alcoholic refreshments. Mr. Roden, who was the Parks Superintendent, would be the actual licensee, therefore the whole licence would be under the eye of the Corporation. In his view there was a real need for such a licence.

Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining: I think in the first place the pavilion was built with no idea of having a licence?

Mr. Nicholson: I should not agree to that. It was known when the hall was being built that these licences were likely to be acquired. At that time it was thought there would be four licences.

When it was built there was no idea of applying for a licence for it? – No, sir.

Was it not said so by members of the Council? – They might have said so.

Was it ever taken into consideration by the Council when the hall was being built that it would be necessary to apply for a new licence? – I do not think the Corporation would have ever considered applying for a new licence.

Because of the impossibility of getting one? – No, because of the monopoly value.

Did you advise the Council in your opinion it would be impossible to obtain a new licence? – I probably did, and I still hold that opinion.

And, of course, by getting this licence removed it means that the Council will save monopoly value? –Certainly.

You would have had to pay for the licence of these premises in any event? – Yes.

It is simply a matter, because they had got to pay for that, the Corporation thought they would take advantage of it? – Yes.

There was another course which might have been taken? It might have been surrendered? – Yes.

Or it might have been sold to another person? – Yes.

And that person could have come and applied for the transfer? – Yes.

In answer to further questions from Mr. Bonniface, the Town Clerk said the Catering Sub-Committee first recommended the transfer. Then the Parks Committee decided to refer the matter to the General Purposes Committee. That Committee by 17 votes in favour and 10 against decided that they would refer a recommendation for the application for the transfer to the Council. That resolution was confirmed by the Council by 22 votes to 11. There was a considerable amount of opposition from ratepayers before the Council, and there was a number of letters in both directions before the members. They had had complaints that intoxicating liquors could not be obtained and served with lunches at the Pavilion, but those complaints had not been made to him.

Mr. Bonniface: Would you be prepared to have endorsed on this licence that intoxicating liquors should only be served with meals?

Mr. Nicholson: No.

When asked by Mr. Bonniface how bottles would be prevented from being taken out, Mr. Nicholson said “I hesitate to answer that question. I am not experienced in such matters, but I understand people like to see their beer poured out”. (Laughter)

Mr. Bonniface pointed out that a number of people used the Warren and the sports ground round about, and Mr. Nicholson replied “We definitely do not wish, and shall not allow, people to take bottles of beer from the Pavilion into the Warren”.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There will be a staff in the Pavilion?

Mr. Nicholson: Yes, an adequate staff.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Bonniface, the Town Clerk said there had been no difficulty with regard to getting a licence at those premises in the winter months for dances. They had used the Leas Cliff Hall licence for that purpose. The licence for the Leas Cliff Hall prohibited the Corporation selling off the premises.

The Chairman (to Mr. Nicholson): Have you had any trouble at that Hall by bottles being served over the counter?

Mr. Bonniface: I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Philcox, cross-examining Mr. Nicholson: You have had a little trouble with regard to the Leas Cliff Hall?

Mr. Nicholson: In what way?

You have had to change the licensee at one time? – Ever since we have been doing the catering the licence has been in the Entertainment Manager's name.

Before the Council the Chairman of the Committee responsible said from his experience at the Leas Cliff Hall he did not think it was desirable for the Corporation to have another licence? – That was his opinion.

There has been some little trouble there? – Yes. It was usually from people not those who had spent the evening at the Hall, but those who came there at the closing of the other licensed houses, and when they got there they were refused admission, or had gained admission and had to be turned out.

Some weeks ago there was someone arrested for making a nuisance of themselves at the Hall with a horn?

The Town Clerk pointed out that they were not charged with being drunk. They were undergraduates who had been blowing a horn on the Leas. He added that the Corporation had thought it best that buildings under their control should have proper supervision, and therefore a plain clothes officer had been in the Hall. Continuing, he said Mr. Roden would not be there all the time, but there would be other people there supervising the intoxicating liquor trade. He was not suggesting that Mr. Roden would spend a lot of time there.

Mr. Philcox: I think the rent of the Packet Boat is £35?

The Town Clerk: I believe so.

What do you think would be the rateable value of the Pavilion? – I have no idea; it is not rated at the moment.

You will admit it will be more than £35? – I do not know.

I believe £200 was the amount mentioned in Council? – I believe that was it.

Is that a likely figure? – I do not know. I am not a valuer.

The Pavilion was really intended to be a restaurant? – Yes, it was, I suppose. All sorts of refreshment can be obtained there, lunches and teas.

Was it not really only desired to sell intoxicating liquor with food? – No, certainly not.

You would object to that condition? – The Council anticipated that if the licence was removed that they would supply intoxicating liquor.

Is it intended to bar children from the Pavilion altogether? – No, certainly not. Children will not be allowed into the bar.

Liquor will be consumed in the main hall where children will be admitted? – Certainly.

Will there be any part of the hall only for those who do not desire intoxicating drink? – It is not proposed to divide between intoxicating and non-intoxicating refreshments.

Is it proposed to sell liquor on all seven days of the week? – Yes.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, the Town Clerk said there were a very large number of houses springing up in the district since East Cliff had been developed. There had been no serious trouble with regard to the catering since the Corporation had taken over the Leas Cliff Hall. The Corporation had had representation from two sports clubs on East Cliff stating that they would like to have refreshments, including intoxicants, supplied in the Pavilion.

Councillor James H. Kent, 284, Cheriton Road, said he was an off-licence holder. He was Chairman of the Parks Committee, which was dealing with that matter. He was well acquainted with the licensing laws and thought that licence at the East Cliff Pavilion was very necessary, particularly in view of the complaints they had had and the applications they had during the time they had been supplying luncheons and suppers. There was the golf and tennis people who used the golf course and the tennis courts who desired such refreshment, and the Corporation would be willing to accept the condition that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises. There would be no difficulty in providing fresh and sufficient cloakroom accommodation, although it was proposed to take one room for the bar. They had, in fact, provided alternative accommodation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bonniface, witness said golf had been played on East Cliff for several years. Two years before they built the East Cliff Pavilion one of the golf clubs made an application to the Committee to be allowed to erect a small club-room so that they might use it, and that undoubtedly so they could obtain intoxicating liquor. That was held over.

Mr. Bonniface: You had probably in mind a new licence?

Councillor Kent: We had in mind there might be four licences, and that we might make use of one of them.

What has happened in the course of the last two years to create the extraordinary demand for this licence? - East Cliff has developed, as you know, and then again the building was erected as a general utility building. At present we can supply everything with the exception of alcoholic liquor. My Committee and the General Purposes Committee looked at it from every angle and felt we should have a licence.

You think the development of the East Cliff in the last two years has created the demand? – Yes, because the development has caused a larger number of visitors to go up there than in previous years.

It does not come to anything like 50 houses? – I do not know about that.

With the extension in building on East Cliff, do you think there would be any hope of your succeeding in getting a new licence for the Pavilion if you had applied for one? Would you agree with me that it would be impossible to get one? – I should say of the Corporation were prepared to pay the monopoly value it would be worth it, and I should say a licence would be granted.

Dr. Carlile said he should like to ask the Town Clerk and Councillor Kent questions.

Mr. Nicholson was thereupon re-called.

Dr. Carlile asked the Town Clerk if complaints had been received from people living quite close to the Leas Cliff Hall as to persons coming out late in an undesirable condition.

Mr. Nicholson said he was aware that there had been complaints.

In your judgement, and having that experience concerning the Leas Cliff Hall, do you think it at all desirable that the Committee responsible for the Pavilion should be granted a licence for it? – I think you would have similar complaints anywhere. When they come away from a dance they would not come away quietly/ It is not due to drink.

Unlicensed halls do not give us anything like the occasion for protests and extra care that licensed halls do? – I do not know anything about that.

I would like to ask whether last night the Leas Cliff Hall had an extension for a dance? – I am afraid I do not know what was going on.

Can you tell the Bench whether you have had any complaints about it? – I have not heard any complaints this morning. I should be surprised if there was a dance on Tuesday night.

It may have been on Monday? – I do not think so.

The Clerk said Friday evening was the last occasion on which there was an extension of licence.

Councillor Kent was also questioned by Dr. Carlile. He said he held an off licence at Morehall.

Dr. Carlile: Those premises are the only licensed premises between Cheriton and the Central Station?

Councillor Kent: Yes.

Do you think the number of people going along that road would be any the less than those who went along the East Cliff? – No.

Therefore the licence was not required more than the one at Morehall? – I do not know, but the answer to that is that one lot of people pass and the others stay on the East Cliff.

Mr. Bonniface, in addressing the Bench, said he had wondered whether the application to them was really an application for the genuine supply to persons who might be their visitors and attending at that hall, or whether it was an application to allow the removal to that beautiful building of a licence which was to be used as an ordinary public house subject only to the endorsement that intoxicating drink should not be consumed off the premises. In other words, were the local authority setting up as publicans with the endorsement on the licence that intoxicating drink should not be consumed off the premises, and that part of that case was that the district had so increased that another licence was required in that district. That would be certainly a matter he would have to bring before them if the Corporation were applying for a new licence. If that was what the Corporation proposed to do, surely there was a principle involved there, and that was; Were the Corporation going to set up in opposition to some of their largest ratepayers, people who had a difficulty in carrying on their businesses and paying their rates? They were told there were thousands of visitors on the East Cliff, and if that licence was granted they were going to take away from the licensees in that district what they ultimately had in the past. There was no evidence before them that those visitors would increase because there was a beautiful pavilion. There was nothing before them at all to show that the visitors had had some inconvenience in obtaining their intoxicating liquor. Had the applicants been prepared to agree to the condition that intoxicating drink should only be supplied with lunches his opposition would have gone. All they said was that they wanted a public house licence with the exception that they would not allow intoxicating liquor to be taken outside. There was another point which they should take into consideration, and that was a note of Patterson on Section 27, which dealt with that particular application. Mr. Bonniface then read the note which had reference to whether the Pavilion could be described as being substantially the same premises as those for which the licence was held at present.

The Clerk: That does not help you much.

Mr. Bonniface said it was for the Magistrates to say whether the Pavilion was substantially the same premises. If they were not substantially the same then the application should be for a new licence, and the Exchequer would be entitled to a monopoly value if those premises were not the same.

Mr. Bonniface was continuing his argument, quoting from Patterson, when Judge Terrell asked him “Do you find it in the Act?”

Mr. Bonniface: These are the notes in Patterson.

Judge Terrell: The notes are nothing but the editor's notes.

Mr. Bonniface: That is so.

Judge Terrell: They are not in the Act.

Mr. Mowll: There is not a single word in Section 24 of the Act concerning what Mr. Bonniface has said.

Mr. Bonniface concluded by saying that that application should be treated on its merits and that it should be as a new licence and dealt with in that way.

Dr. Carlile said he represented the ministers and clergy, including the Vicar of Folkestone, and in addition the Chaplain of St. Andrew's Convalescent Home. From the proceedings that morning the Bench would have seen that that really was an application for a public house with a restriction concerning the sale of drink off the premises. There were certain special objections to it. They had heard a great deal about the need. When some of them were in Court before, and the application was made for the renewal of the four licences in the area which was to be re-built, they were told there was no question of redundancy, and that was not a matter to be considered. Had some of them had the opportunity they would have said there was a question of redundancy. Within five minutes' walk there were 18 licensed houses. The Magistrates had heard from where the old Packet Boat Inn stood to the East Cliff Pavilion it was only 800 yards. If the Bench went through the Harbour to the East Cliff Pavilion, they would pass five licensed houses on the way, four of them with back entrances in another street. If they went along Radnor Street in the best conditions they would pass three licensed houses in that street alone, and one of them, according to the generosity of the Corporation, would be a corner site. If the Bench went another way they would pass one licensed house at the bottom of the Tram Road, and four other houses within five minutes. Within ten minutes' walk they would have four or five opportunities of getting a drink. It could hardly be said there was a growing need for people who went along that way. The opposition knew the need and they knew the neighbourhood, and they wished to emphasise the fact that if the need exists, the Corporation, through the Parks Superintendent, was not the body to supply that need. They wished to emphasise that very strongly for a variety of reasons. They did not want, and they represented a large body of ratepayers, the Town Council competing with the publicans on ordinary lines. It was one thing at the West Cliff Hall, where intoxicants were served to people who attended the concerts, dances, and so on. There was nothing of that kind on the East Cliff, but dances, which sometimes went on until early in the morning, had been held there, and the little experience was not to the good when licences had been grated there. It was really a surprising thing to some of them when it was stated very definitely in connection with the Leas Cliff Hall licence that intoxicants should not be served for consumption off the premises, that by some means intoxicants could be sold at the East Cliff Pavilion through that licence held by the Corporation. There was nothing to prevent the Committee, in view of past experience, and what they knew of that Committee they would do so, of supplying intoxicating drink at the Chalet in the Warren through the licence at the Pavilion.

The Clerk: Every time they wanted such a licence they would have to apply for it.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: There is nothing to prevent them carrying on in that way.

Proceeding, Dr. Carlile said they agreed that Mr. Roden was an admirable man, and anyone who knew his splendid work as a gardener could have the least idea that he could not give supervision to a trade about which he knew nothing, and they also suggested that a Committee of the Corporation was not the most desirable body to carry on a public house. They said from their experience if an ordinary publican had conducted his premises as the Hall on the Leas had been he would probably have lost his licence. Anyway, there would have been serious complaints about the conduct of the premises. He suggested it was unfair to expect a police constable, who was partly responsible for the conduct of the Hall, to make complaints about people who were his employers. If there had to be a licence for that Pavilion, it would be, he suggested, a straightforward thing if there had been an application for a new licence, but they knew there would not be the ghost of a chance of getting that, but that application was an afterthought. The Corporation had a certain licence, and the question was what they could do with it. They might have sold it. The Chairman of the Parks Committee, being in the trade, thought it was a good thing, and the Corporation ought to stick to it. It might be a large number of ratepayers very much objected to being mixed up with the ordinary business of a public house. He represented no temperance organisation, but the clergy and ministers, and they had behind them a large number of ratepayers. Their view was that if the need could be substantiated – the did not think it could – of allowing the Pavilion to be a public house according to the application of Mr. Mowll, supported by the Town Clerk, then they should let it be provided by the brewer and a proper publican. At the present time the East Cliff Hall was for the provision of teas and light refreshments, and one of the needs for which it was built was the provision of toilet accommodation for women and children. They had heard there was no proposal to exclude children from those premises. They submitted that it was not at all desirable that the premises should be utilised as was suggested. A number of women would not take their children to a place that was an ordinary public house. They believed the Council had made a mistake over the matter. The Magistrates had heard the different figures regarding the voting, and the members were not at all unanimous. Some members of the Council had spoken very strongly in opposition. The Committee responsible for the Pavilion did not seem to do very well, for according to the published figures they made a loss for which they were responsible. If they could not make a profit on those premises without a licence, then they as ratepayers did not want to make a profit in that way.

He had to do with Dr. Barnardo's Home, which was probably the largest building nearest to those premises. They knew the character of that Home, a lovely institution for little children from the homes of the poorest of the poor, and when people came down to see those children they did not want to see a public house nearby. Then St. Andrew's Convalescent Home, which was for patients all over the place, was also comparatively close. Those premises would be an easy walk from the Home, and those connected with the Home did not want that licence granted.

The Rev. C.H. Scott, Vicar of St. Michael's, said his opposition represented the views of residents in the district. It was not based on the temperance or teetotal question. He had no objection to public houses in ordinary streets in the town with all the legitimate and moderate trade. In fact, he encouraged the idea so long as the men were moderate. The one salient fact that emerged was that that property was being pulled down in Radnor Street for town development, and a public house was going begging, consequently the majority of the Town Council decided to have a new type of public house in a new place. He suggested that an application for a new licence should have been made for such a place, but why had that not been done? Because they knew it would never have had a chance of being successful.. That stood out as the salient point. The ministers were united on the matter. “That is a most remarkable thing”, the speaker said, “Dr. Carlile and I have never been together in our lives, and never will be again”. (Laughter) Proceeding, he said he lived on the East Cliff. That licence was being obviously sought for the serving of drinks. He would have agreed to drinks being allowed with meals, but that suggestion was quite bluntly turned down. Drinking freely in the Pavilion on Sunday and weekdays, with no restrictions, was not a pretty picture, and not many residents of the East Cliff would desire it.

Mr. Philcox said he represented an entirely different view – the view of the Temperance Council – who had canvassed the neighbourhood to see what support they could get. As a result he had been instructed to write to a large number of people near the East Cliff Pavilion, and he had got a large number of retainers there. In addition, there was a petition signed by 476 residents.

Judge Terrell: Have you seen your clients? You have not seen all these?

Mr. Philcox: I do not think any solicitor sees all his clients. His clerk does that.

Judge Terrell: Have you seen any of them?

Mr. Philcox: No.

Judge Terrell: Then you cannot prove the signatures, and they cannot be produced.

Mr. Philcox was questioned about the petition, and the Chairman asked him if he took it round himself. He replied that he did not, and the Magistrates then decided that the petition could not be put in.

Mr. Philcox said all who had signed were local residents. They were persons resident in the area of the East Cliff. He submitted it was quite obvious that the residents would not like a public house there, because it was a residential district. If the Pavilion was going to take people away from their meals it was not going to be of benefit to boarding houses. He submitted that if the removal was granted, then intoxicants should only be served with food at tables on the premises. He did not think that would be any hardship to the Corporation, but it would meet the views of a large number of ratepayers.

Mr. Mowll said he had been able to get the figures regarding the population in the area in reply to an enquiry by the Magistrates. The population was 1,650, and the number of houses was 330. Those figures did not include Radnor Street and The Durlocks.

The Chairman: I understand the police have no objection.

Chief Inspector Pittock: No, sir.

The Bench were absent for close upon half an hour considering their decision, and when they returned the Chairman said “The Bench have agreed that the licence should be removed and granted on the understanding that all liquors sold should be consumed on the premises.

Note: Dr. Carlile asks us to say that in his question to the Town Clerk in reference to a dance on Tuesday night, it was obviously the East Cliff Pavilion to which he referred, and not the Leas Cliff Hall, as the replies by Mr. Nicholson and the Magistrates' Clerk would indicate.