Council House Street and Union Street
Stephen Minter is mentioned as being a beer seller in Council House
Street of 1847, so perhaps this house goes back as early as that.
The first was in Council House Street as early as 1851. The second in Union
Street, next to the "Three Kings",
opening in 1868. Woodrow tried to transfer the licence to number twelve
Commercial Quay the following year, but of the six houses next to number
twelve, four were already licensed. The request was thrown out of court and we are left in wonderment.
From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General
Advertiser, Saturday 5 January, 1850. Price 5d
DOVER PETTY SESSIONS
FRIDAY - Before the Mayor, and C. B. Wilkins, W. P. Elsted, and G.
Barzillai Birch (Lord
Warden), Thomas Hobday (Ancient Druids),
and Stephen Minter (Royal Arms,) were each charged upon information with
three several offences:- 1st for selling beer, 2nd for selling spirits,
and, 3rd for selling tobacco, in booths upon a certain ground on which a
fair was recently held without being licensed so to do. John Lewis, Esq.
Collector of the license, attended to watch proceedings; and the
prosecution was conducted by Mr. S. Chalk, the defendants being
supported by Mr. Tapley. Birch was first arranged, on the charge of
selling beer. Mr. Goodall, of the Excise, supported the information, and
the evidence adduced being satisfactory to the Bench, defendant was
convicted on this charge in the mitigating penalty of £5. The charge of
selling spirits was then proffered against Birch. Mr. Tapley took an
objection to the information, on the ground that the charge was not made
either in the words or substance of the Act, and that the negative
exceptions had not been distinctly enumerated. Several cases were cited
in support of the objections; to which Mr. Chalk replied by adopting
citation in support of the information. The Bench ultimately ruled that
the objection was fatal, and the charge was quashed. The charge for
selling tobacco being about to be proceeded with, Mr. Tapley stated that
his client would admit the charge; that the other defendants admitted
the charges against them, and the whole threw themselves upon the mercy
of the court, and praying that the magistrates in addition to conviction
in the mitigating penalty on all the offences, would recommend to the
Board of Excise a further mitigation, so as to reduce the penalty to £6
upon each defendant, as had been suggested by the prosecution.
The Bench assented to the proposition, and judgement being taken on
all the cases the defendants were severely fined in the mitigated
penalty of £30, with the understanding that a recommendation would be
forwarded for a further mitigation as suggested.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
11 September, 1868.
THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY
ROYAL ARMS, UNION STREET
The application of Mr. Amos for a license to this house, although
opposed by Mr. Fox on the ground that it was not required, was granted.
From the Dover Express and East Kent
News, Friday 30 April, 1869.
Henry Amos, landlord of the "Royal Arms" public-house, Union Street,
and Lucy Amos, his wife, were summoned for having upon their premises
Mr. Beverley, of the Custom House, London, attended to prosecute, and
Mr. Thomas Fox, of Dover, to defend.
The defendants did not put in their appearance.
Edward Hopper, a Custom House Officer, having been sworn, said he
left two copies of a summons, similar to the one produced , at the
"Royal Arms," Union Street, Wednesday, the 21st April. he did not notice
whether the name of the male defendant was on the outside of the house
when he left the summonses. Witness gave the summonses to Mr. Wooder,
the person who was then in possession of the house, and reported the
serving of them to the proper officer.
By Mr. Fox: I asked to see defendants, but Mr. Wooder said that he
did not know where they were, but when he saw them he would give the
summonses to them.
Mr. Saunders, on his oath, said that he saw the name of Henry Amos
painted over the door of the "Royal Arms" on the 21st of April, after
the serving of the summonses.
Mr. Fox said he thought the Magistrates would take it into
consideration that the defendants had not been served personally with
the summonses and would not proceed with the case.
The Magistrates said they did not consider that the evidence had
proved the serving of the summonses on the defendants personally, and
they therefore dismissed the summonses.
Mr. Beverley was informed that on the whereabouts of the defendants
being known fresh summonses would be applied for.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday,
13 August, 1869.
ROBBERY FROM A FISHING BOAT
George Clark, a mariner, was charged with stealing a quantity of
articles of wearing apparel, some candles, and some sugar, from the
fishing smack Ranger, lying in Dover Harbour.
Philip Pike, master of the fishing smack Ranger, identified the pair
of boots and a rug produced as his property. He last saw them on
Saturday the 31st July, at six o'clock, when they were on board his
boat, which was lying at Hambrook's Dock. When he went on board the
smack in company with his son on the following Monday morning he found
that the lock had been forced off the cabin door and on going down into
the cabin he found several things were missing. he went to the
police-station and gave information, and on returning he again searched
the cabin and found that his writing case had been broken open and all
his papers, including the half-yearly return of the slip, distributed
about the cabin. he then returned to the station-house and informed the
police. He afterwards saw the boots and rugs produced on board the smack
called the Psyche, which belongs to Mr. Hammond.
George Boyce said he was a fisherman on board the smack Ranger.
He saw the pair of boots produced on Saturday, but on the following
Monday he missed them and gave information to the police. He saw them on
Sunday in the possession of the police. the stockings, boots comforter,
and pair of drawers he identified as being his property. He missed them
on Monday. He valued them at 10s.
Mary Ann Wilson, a married woman, living at 31, Council House Street,
said the prisoner had lodged at her house for a few days. She
recollected him coming home on Saturday night the 31st July, at a
quarter to twelve. he brought the black bag and a bundle produced with
him. having her suspicions aroused she went up to the room and looked in
the bags. On policeman making application for them she went up into
prisoner's room and brought the bag and bundle down. The bag
contained, boots, shirt, comforter, candles, sugar, and several other
By the prisoner: My husband opened the door to admit you. I did not.
I heard some one talking outside the door just before you came in. You
had been drinking, but you knew perfectly well what you were about.
Police-constable Baker said that he received the boots produced and
other articles from the last witness on Saturday. On Sunday he saw the
prisoner on board a smack wearing the boots and flannel stockings
produced. Witness told him he should take him into custody on a charge
of stealing several articles from the fishing smack Ranger, when he said
he supposed he had got into a pretty mess now; but that another sailor
had given them to him. The witness then removed him to the
Bt the prisoner: I did not find the shirt and stockings in your
The master of the ship, in reply to the Magistrates, said that the
half-yearly return had not yet been found, but they had found a
piece of the ship's articles under the cabin floor when the water was
being drained out of the ship.
The prisoner pleased not guilty; and in his defence said that on
Saturday night, the last instant, he was drinking with some Artillery
soldiers at the "Royal Arms" public-house. The soldiers had all left at
a quarter to ten, when he thought he would go home. He started for home,
and when as far as the "Ship Hotel" he met
an old sailor friend, who told him that he was going to run away from
his ship, the captain having paid him some advance-money, partly in
clothes and partly in money. The sailor then asked prisoner to take care
of the clothes which he was carrying with him on his shoulders in a bag
and in a bundle, as he would have to keep out of sight till the ship
went to sea, when he would come for them. The prisoner told him that he
had no home, but he would take them to his lodgings . The sailor
accompanied him to the door of the house where the prisoner lodged, with
the bag and bundle. Before leaving the sailor told the prisoner that if
there was anything in the bag that would suit him he might wear them.
the prisoner put the black bag under his bed and took the shoes and
stockings out of the white one. (He (prisoner) hearing of the robbery
from the Ranger, but he did not suspect that the articles he had
in his possession were stolen property, having known the sailor who had
given them to him for a long time. One of the crew of the ranger had
told him of the robbery. If he had suspected the property in his
possession have been stolen, he would have handed them over to the
constable. On the constable informing him of the robbery he accompanied
him to the police-station.
The magistrates committed the prisoner to take his trial at the next
From the Dover Express. 1870.
Johan Arhreus and Gustave Hayan, a couple of German sailors, and William
Henry Tregurtha an English seaman were brought up by P.C. Faith on a
charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct and fighting in Union
Street late on Saturday night. P.C. Faith said that on Saturday night
about twenty minutes to 12 o’clock he was on duty in Strond Street when
his attention was called to a disturbance in Union Street. On getting
there he found a number of foreign sailors coming over Palmerston
Bridge. They were speaking in broken English and he heard them say “we
will have one English fight.” (A laugh.) They made their way to the
Royal Arms a public house close by and just as they got there the doors
were burst open and three of four English sailors came out. There were
fourteen or fifteen foreigners and they all set on to the Englishmen. He
called to a rifle picket, which was near, and the soldiers assisted him
in quelling the disturbance and he succeeded in taking the three
prisoners into custody after which an attempt was made by the foreigners
to rescue the Germans but he succeeded in getting them to the Station
House. The magistrates put several questions with the view of
ascertaining by whom the disturbance was commenced but the constable was
unable to give any information upon this point. All he knew was that he
heard the foreigners declare previous to the disturbance that they would
have “one English fight.” but whether there had been any previous
provocation on the part of the Englishmen he was unable to say.
Tregurtha said he had given no provocation. As soon as he came out of
the public house he found himself in the hands of the foreigners who
commenced assaulting him.
The two Germans denied that they had interfered in the “melle”. They
confirmed the statement of the policeman as to a street-fight having
taken place but they persisted that they were mere spectators and that
the policeman had taken them into custody by mistake. The superintendent
of police said there were great complaints as to the disorderly conduct
of the foreigners now detained in the harbour.
The magistrates said that as this was the first case which had come
before them they were inclined to deal with it leniently especially as
the evidence showed that a large number of other persons who were not in
custody were mixed up in the disturbance while it failed to prove who
had first given provocation. It must not be understood however that such
disturbances could be indulged in with impunity and if any other case
should be brought before them and the circumstance were made out to
their satisfaction the offenders would be severely punished.
Information kindly supplied by Joyce Banks.
More reading of Dover at
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
6 January, 1871. Price 1d.
TRANSFER OF LICENSE
Mr. Lewis, instructed by Mr. Woodrow, who holds a license for the
"Royal Arms," Union Street, which is about to be pulled down for harbour
improvements, applied for the transfer of the license of that house to
another in Snargate Street, which he had lately taken, being No. 116,
now in the occupation of Mr. Elt, bookseller, which the applicant
considered the most convenient one for his purpose.
Mr. Fox, who appeared in behalf of a large number of the inhabitants
of the street, objected to the license being granted on the ground that
there were already too many public houses now existing in the immediate
neighbourhood, and handed in a memorial signed by twenty-nine of the
principle inhabitants of the district, protesting against the license
The Magistrates after a short consultation refused the application.
Mr. Lewis gave notice of appeal.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
10 March, 1871. Price 1d.
TRANSFER OF LICENSES
Mr. Lewis appeared on behalf of Mr. Woodrow, the landlord of the
"Royal Arms," a public-house in Union Street, immediately adjoining the
"Three Kings" which was about to be
pulled down by the Harbour authorities, for the transfer of the license
to the house No. 12, Commercial Quay. Mr. Lewis reminded the Bench that
the applicant had applied at the last transfer day for the transfer of
the license to a house in Snargate Street, and that the Magistrates,
while declining to accede to that application, had informed the
applicant that their refusal was not governed by any objection to
himself personally. This being the case he hoped the Magistrates would
consider him eligible to take charge of a house to which he now desired
to have the licence of the "Royal Arms" transferred, although it was a
house which had not been before licensed. He reminded the Bench that no
less than four houses had recently closed on the Commercial Quay, while,
in addition, the "Three Kings" and the
"Royal Arms" were about to be pulled down, thus depriving the public of
a certain amount of accommodation they had previously possessed. He
hoped that under these circumstances the Magistrates would not object to
grant the transfer.
Mr. Fox. objected to in this case also. He presented a memorial from
the owners and occupiers of property in the immediate neighbourhood of
the house in question praying that a license might not be granted. So
far as the public accommodation was concerned, he mentioned that of the
six houses immediately No. 12, Commercial Quay, four were already
licensed for the sale of beer.
The Magistrates unanimously refused to grant the transfer.
Several other applications for transfer of licenses were made to the
Magistrates, and, there being no opposition, were duly granted.
This disappeared when the anchorage was enlarged in 1871.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 July, 1871. Price 1d.
DOVER HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS
Messrs. Robinson and Son are honoured with instructions from the
Commissioners of Dover Harbour, to submit for sale by public auction, on
the Premises of Union Street and Strond Street, on Monday 7th August,
1871, punctually at 3 o’clock in the afternoon.
FOUR HOUSES THREE OF WHICH ARE NEARLY NEW, and will be sold without any
reserve; to be pulled down within a specific time to be named in the
Conditions of Sale, viz.:
Lot 3. is that substantial, modern, and newly built Public House, and
known as the “Royal Arms,” late in tenure of Mr. Woodrow, together with
such fixtures as may be therein.
MINTER Stephen 1851-53+
MOORE William 1854
AMOS Mr Henry 1868-69 end
WOODROW Edward 1869-July/71
From the Dover Express