Sort file:- Dover, September, 2021.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 29 September, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1851

Royal Arms

Latest 1871

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


FRIDAY - Before the Mayor, and C. B. Wilkins, W. P. Elsted, and G. Graham Esqrs.

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 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 contraband goods.

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.


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 things.

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 station-house.

Bt the prisoner: I did not find the shirt and stockings in your possession.

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 Quarter Sessions. 


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.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 6 January, 1871. Price 1d.


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 being granted.

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.


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.



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 (age 33 in 1871Census) Dover Express


Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express



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