Sort file:- Deal, March, 2021.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 31 March, 2021.


Earliest 1866

Pier Refreshment Rooms

Latest 1974-

(Name to)



Deal Pier circa 1930

Above photo showing the 1864 Deal Pier circa 1930. By kind permission of Ian Boyle


Not exactly a public house, but obviously licensed and according to reference I have from the Dear Licensing Register, was licensed on 13 September 1866.

The pier in question would have been the second one Deal has possessed over the years, but not the one there today.

The first pier was built by J. Rennie in 1838 but ran out of finances and was subsequently halted having just had half its intended length completed.

1863 saw the second pier started by Eugenius Birch when the first cast iron pillar was sunk. At 333m long, decked along its entire length with tram tracks installed for luggage delivery and a three-tiered steamer landing stage at the head and two ornate toll-houses at the shoreward end. Autumn 1864 saw its grand opening. Unfortunately being struck by a number of ships during its time, the "Merle" on 19th January 1873, the "Alliance" on 26th January 1884', its complete destruction wasn't until it was hit by another ship a Dutch vessel "Nora" crippled by a mine, in January 1940. But it did take Winston Churchill through the army, permission to demolish the remains, leaving only the shoreward tollbooths remaining. Thus ended the second pier.

It is this pier that held the drinks license, but for how long I am at this time unsure.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 9 October, 1869. 1d.


Mr. James Thomas Outwin, proprietor of the "Pier Refreshment Room," was summoned upon the information of Superintendent Parker for having his room open between the hours of three and five, on the afternoon of Sunday the 26th of Sept., viz., at a quarter to five, the same not  being for the purpose of supplying travellers.

Mr. Outwin pleaded not guilty.

Supt. Parker was then sworn. He said: On Sunday afternoon the 26th of last month. I saw that the "Refreshment Room" on the Pier was open, and I went out there. This I should suppose was about a quarter or ten minutes to five o'clock in the afternoon. I found Mr. Outwin there, and three other persons - Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. F. Hammond, and young Mr. Willcox. They were sitting round a table, and there was a glass on the table, which contained something of the colour of beer, but I can't say whether it was brandy, rum or beer. The glass was an ordinary half-pint tumbler. Mr. Outwin made some observation to me, to the effect that he did not think my duty extended to his room out there, because he considered that it was a private room, and that he could have any friends out there he liked.

Mr. Outwin denied that he told the Superintendent he thought he was exceeding his duties, but said he might have told him the room was entirely a private one. There was very great doubt, however, whether the "Refreshment Room" was not outside the parish, and Mr. Woodruff, the assistant overseer, had that morning told him that it was not rated. Although, he though he was entitled to raise that question, he wished the Bench distinctly to understand that he did not measure his defence to the case to rest on that ground, but on public grounds. According to the terms of his agreement with the present Peer authorities the room in question was to be open at all times, all the year round, as a place of shelter. In fact he had no more to do with the room itself than any person present in court, he only rented the counter. He also observed that he had been singled out from other hotel keepers by the Superintendent, which he thought, to say the least, was rather a marked proceeding on that officer's part, as he understood Mr. Parker had visited the "Royal Hotel" that same morning, and that he met with a very warm, indeed a very hot, reception, and that although he found someone drinking there, and promised the landlord that he should hear from him, no summons had been issued in that case. Mr. Outwin also stated that the glass referred to by Superintendent Parker, simply contained water, which he himself was drinking.

Supt. Parker said it was true that he met with rather a warm reception from the landlord of the "Royal Hotel" - warm, not in a hospitable sense, but as a degree of temper. Some one was drinking at the bar, but Mr. Allen informed him, and he believed it was strictly correct, that the person was a lodger.

Mr. Outwin said it was not so, but that the person lived opposite.

Mr. Highes said it was thoroughly understood by the Magistrates, that Mr. Parker's instructions were universal, and that there was to be no exceptions whatever. All persons infringing their licenses would be rigidly proceeded against.

The Clerk remarked that as Mr. Outwin had raised the question as to whether the "Refreshment Room" was in the Borough, the Court had better take time to consider the question. Even if Mr. Outwin had infringed his license the time was so very close that it would be rather sharp work to fine him, as the few minutes might be occasioned by the differences in the clocks. Mr. Outwin had not been summoned entirely through Mr. Parker, but in consequence of a complaint that had been made by other publicans who complained of his being allowed to open whilst they were prohibited.

The Magistrates then consulted for a few minutes and then dismissed the case remarking, however, that they hoped Mr. Outwin would assist them as far as he could in the enforcement of the act, and that he would not allow the place on the Pier to be a general rendezvous, as it would set such a bad example to the other publicans in the town.

Mr. Outwin said of course he would do all in his power to carry out the regulations laid down, and then left the court.



Hopefully further information to follow about this one, and just found reference to 1974 when it was apparently owned by the Mayor of Deal and called "Goodwin's".



OUTWIN James Thomas & Son 1866+ of the "Clarendon Hotel."

WOODS Brian L J 1974+ Library archives 1974 Owned by Mayor of deal


I believe that J T Outwin and Co were of 71 Sloane Street, London, and perhaps only owners and not licensees. They also owned the "Black Horse."


Library archives 1974Library archives 1974


If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-