SWAN HOTEL Pubs of Dover

DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Dover, October, 2024.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 29 October, 2024.

PUB LIST

PUBLIC HOUSES

Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1662

Swan Hotel

Latest 1937

26 Strond Street

20 Strond Street

Custom House Quay

Dover

Above postcard date unknown, kindly sent by Graham Butterworth.

Swan Hotel and Marine Department cart No 6

Above picture kindly sent by Glenn Hatfield. Date unknown, showing the Marine Department Cart No 6 outside.

Above shows the Swan Hotel. Circa 1930

From the Dover Express 1 June 1951.

The area near the Crosswall will soon have an altered appearance with the demolition of the properties in Strond Street and Customs House Quay, to make way for dock-side improvements. The well-known "Hotel de Paris" (right) is the last to go. Close by were the "Swan" (in the photo still standing) and "Pavilion Hotels" and the "Green Dragon" public house, better known to older generations of Dovorians.

Above photo showing the area after demolition, 1951, kindly sent by Paul Wells.

The number will vary over time in keeping with the changes. Before 1932 it was number twenty. Up to 1915 it also had a rear entrance from Commercial Quay.

In 1890 the owners would have liked to annexe their neighbour but were not allowed to do so. Leney and later Fremlin both utilised this one. Alterations and renovations meant a temporary closure in 1908.

Supplied by Alfred Leney Co Ltd, who bought out Thomas Walker's Phoenix Brewery in 1859 and registered as such in 1896, until bought out by Fremlin Brothers brewery of Maidstone in 1926, brewing at the Dover brewery ceased in 1927, which later passed to Whitbread.

A little past history might seem appropriate at this point. Strond Street was formed early in the seventeenth century but Custom House Quay not before 1670. I mention that because a severe storm struck the town at seven a.m. one morning in November 1662. It coincided with a high tide and the account mentions Master Elliott at the "Swan Inn", a building three storeys high, having all the floors flooded. The stable walls fell in and the horses tethered to the manger were lost. The wind was said to be North Westerly. Other reports spoke of the whole valley being flooded, with dead sheep floating in the water.

At the hotel we are now discussing, Martin served in 1791. With the exception of number 14, which was reckoned to be one of the oldest properties in the town, this street vanished in 1951. The road itself was closed to the public thereafter from July that year. Number 14 went shortly afterwards.

Kentish Gazette, April 12 – 21, 1789. Kindly sent from Alec Hasenson.

Ship auction at the Swan, near the Cross Wall in Dover, April 22, 1789.

From the Kentish Gazette, April 5 to 8, 1791.

Advert for a Sale of Deals [wood planks of a certain kind] at Edward Martin's, at the Swan in Dover, Monday, April 11 1791.

From the Kentish Gazette, 22 August 1837.

DEATHS.

August 12, at Dover, at an advanced age, after a lingering illness, Mr. John Ellis, many years landlord of the "Swan Inn."

Canterbury Weekly, 26 August, 1837.

Death.

Aug 12, at Dover, at an advanced age. Mr. John Ellis, many years landlord of the "Swan Inn."

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 7 May, 1842. Price 5d.

DOVER POLICE REPORT

Thursday - Gustave Courcey, charged with smuggling. William Marks, an officer of H. M. Customs, stated that the defendant came into the "Swan," and on seeing him ran away. I followed him into Mr. Ismay's shop, and saw him try to break a bottle, which I seized and found it to contain about a quart of foreign brandy. Fined 20s. including costs, or seven days imprisonment.

Kentish Gazette, 23 February 1847.

DEATH.

BROMLEY:- Feb. 17, at Dover, Mrs. Bromley, wife of Mr. R. Bromley, of the "Swan Inn," aged 40.

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday, 13 November, 1847. Price 5d.

CORONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was held yesterday, at the “Swan Inn,” on the body of Henry Clements, a child aged six years, son of John Clements, fisherman, residing in Limekiln Street. The Juryhaving viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:-

John Meyer, seaman on board the Belgian packet Ville d'Ostend, deposed: On Thursday morning about seven o'clock, my shipmate Versteat was searching in the sand for the bowl of a German pipe, which had been dropped overboard by one of the passengers. He called to me that there was a body lying in the mud between the vessel and the quay, and asked me to throw over a rope, which he made fast to the body, which, on drawing up on the deck, I found to be that of a boy, quite dead. I sent to the Police, and we conveyed the body to this house.

Thomas Versteat, seaman on board the same vessel, corroborated the above evidence, and further deposed, that he saw deceased, with six or seven other children, playing together on the quay the previous evening, for two or three hours, till dusk. They were playing with some chips our carpenter was making in repairing a spar on the quay.

Elizabeth Clements, mother of deceased, deposed: On Wednesday afternoon, about two o'clock, I gave deceased some bread and butter, and sent him to school at Mrs. Ing's, in Round Tower Street. I did not afterwards see him alive. Finding he did not return I went to Mrs. Ing's, soon after five o'clock, and found he had not been there. I searched the town till one o'clock in the morning, and enquired at the station-house, but heard no tidings of him.

Madame Louise deposed: On Wednesday evening about 5 o'clock, deceased came to me saying he had lost his farthing, and asked me to give him an apple, which I did. He was frequently playing on the quay with other children.

Stephen Castle, a lad aged nine years, deposed: On Wednesday afternoon, between 4 and 5 o'clock, I heard two boys, named Harry Evenden and John Goodson, tell a Belgian sailor that young Clements had fallen over the quay. The sailor looked over the quay, and said there was no one over there.

Madame Louise, on being recalled, denied this statement. The boys Evenden and Goodson were then sent for, but their statements being so contradictory, they were not sworn. The impression on the minds of the Jury appeared to be that Evenden saw the boy fall over, but, being frightened, was afraid to confess it.

McDonald Wallis, assistant to Mr. Coleman, deposed that he was sent for on Thursday morning, when the body was quite cold, and life had been extinct for some hours. This being the whole of the evidence, the Jury returned a verdict of “Found Drowned.”

Kentish Gazette, 27 January 1857.

A foreigner named Antonio Polaski, formerly a bugler in the British Swiss Legion, was examined on Monday by the borough magistrates, on a charge of having stolen a great coat, three silver table spoons, and other articles, the property of Richard Bromley, of the "Swan Inn." The prosecutor related that the premises were forcibly entered on the 2nd inst. — the till emptied, four great coats, two bottles of gin, a box of cigars, three spoons, and other things stolen.

Thomas Denne, landlord of the "Wellington," Canterbury, deposed that the prisoner came to his house on the 14th inst., and requested him to advance half-a-crown on two table spoons, as the pawnbrokers’ shops were closed, and he wanted to go to Dover. On Inspector Spratt making inquiry about a coat, witness gave up the spoons, and told him of what had occurred.

Inspector Spratt confirmed this, and detailed the particulars of his apprehension of the prisoner, and finding in his room a silver spoon and the duplicate of a coat which he had pledged.

Mary Ann Carpenter stated the particulars of the prisoner's pledging with her a coat and a handkerchief — which were sworn to by the prosecutor, and prisoner was committed for trial.

On Wednesday the prisoner underwent examination on other charges — among them for breaking into the house of a person named Scott, from which he stole a Dutch clock and other articles; and sundry dresses from the residence of Mr. Waterman. He was committed for trial on the first charge, and on the second with a female named Mary Heath, with whom he had been living in Canterbury, to the Dover sessions.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 19 October 1867. Price 1d.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT. FRIDAY

(Before W. Plummer, Esq., and J. G. Drury, Esq.)

SHOPLIFTING AT MESSRS. HIGHAM AND HUNT'S.

Sophia Berry, Ann Pear, and Ellen Butster were charged with stealing a silk dress, value £4 17s. 6d, the property of Messrs. Higham and Hunt, linen drapers, Mercery-lane.

Mr. Hunt said the three prisoners came to his shop on Wednesday last, and asked to look at some silk dresses. He called one of his assistants, who showed the prisoners some dresses, and sold one to them worth £4 17s. 6d.

Elizabeth Parker, an assistant at Messrs. Higham and Hunt's establishment, said that the prisoners came into the shop between one and two o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. At their request she shewed the prisoners some silks. They purchased one, and gave the address and name, Mrs. May, No. 10, Burgate street. Between 5 and 6 o'clock witness' attention was drawn to some things she had shown to the prisoners; and she discovered that a dress worth £1 17b. 6d. was missing. She remembered showing this particular dress to the prisoners. No person entered the shop between the time the person entered the shop between the time the prisoners left and the time that she discovered a dress had been stolen.

William Cowtan, an assistant, said he was in the shop all Wednesday afternoon, and no dresses were disposed of between 2 and 5 o'clock that day.

Charles Edward Rose, another assistant, deposed that on Wednesday afternoon last, at about 20 minutes to 2 he saw three females enter the shop. He could identify two of them (Sophia Berry and Ann Pear); but he did not take particular notice of the other. They ordered a dress to be sent to 10, Burgate-street. The prisoner Ann Pear said this, and added that she would pay for it when it was sent.

P.S. Hayward deposed:— Having received information on Wednesday afternoon that a dress had been stolen from Messrs. Higham and Hunt's shop, I made enquiries about the prisoners. I found that they had left by the 4.41 train (London, Chatham, and Dover) for Dover. I went to Dover the following morning, and heard that the prisoners were staying at the “Swan Inn." I waited till they came out, and followed them. I spoke to the prisoner Pear, and asked her if I had not had the pleasure of seeing her at Canterbury. (Prisoner: Speak the truth; I have never been in Canterbury). She replied that she had never been in Canterbury, and said I was mistaken. The other two prisoners then came up, and also said I had made a mistake. I then told them that I was a constable from Canterbury, and that they were charged with stealing a silk dress, from Messrs. Higham and Hunt's shop in Mercery-lane. I told them that I must take them to the Police Station, and they again denied that they were ever in Canterbury. I then took them to the Station-house, and saw the Superintendent of the Dover police. He cautioned the prisoners in the usual way, and they admitted that they had been in Canterbury. They were then searched, and the sum of £2 1s. 9d. was found upon Berry. When I arrived at Canterbury I made enquiries at No. 10. Burgate-street (Mrs. Fea's), and was told that no persons answering the description of the prisoners had been there.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty; and said they were never in Canterbury before.

The Magistrates adjourned the case till Monday.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 29 August, 1890.

APPLICATIONS

An application made by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, for the license of the “Swan Hotel” to include a house adjoining, which is used as dining rooms and bedrooms, was adjourned to the Broadstairs meeting, in order to have a proper plan prepared, showing the surrounding property.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 September, 1890.

THE SWAN EXTENSION ABANDONED

At the Dover sitting, plans were put in asking the Licensing Committee to sanction an extension of the “Swan Inn,” by taking in the adjoining house. Mr. Worsfold Mowll now appeared to support the application, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of a large body of petitioners from the Pier district, opposed the extension. The applicant was not present, having, it is supposed, missed a train, and in his absence, the Magistrates were not prepared to grant the application, and Mr. Mowll, therefore, withdrew it.

The other business was formal.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 April, 1907. Price 1d.

CHARGE AGAINST THE SWAN

At the Dover police Court this morning, before Messrs. M. Pepper, W. J. Barnes, J. W. Bussey and E. Chitty, Ernest Gardner, landlord of the “Swan Hotel,” Strond Street, was summoned for on Sunday the 24th March, that during the period that such premises were required to be closed, at 25 minutes past 10 in the morning, did open the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors to a person not a bona fide traveller. He pleaded not guilty.

James Flinn, of 10, Oxenden Street, Dover, was summoned for, on March 24th, being in the “Swan,” which was required to be closed, not being a bona fide traveller or a private friend of the landlord. He also pleaded not guilty.

Neither of the defendants were legally represented, but Mr. R. Mowll appeared to watch the case on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners.

Mr. Reginald Knocker, in opening the case, said evidence would be given to the effect that at 10.35 on Sunday morning, 24th of March, the Police visited the “Swan Hotel,” and they then found six men at the bar drinking liquor. That, of course was a time when the premises should have been closed. These men were all Belgians. Two of them came from the Ostend steamer “Marie Henretta,” which had arrived from Ostend at 3.10 that morning, and the other four were seamen belonging to the Belgian steam trawler “Alphonsa,” which was lying in dock for repairs. None of those men were summoned. The two from the Ostend steamer were bona fide travellers, the other four seamen were not, but their ship had gone to sea with the four men, and as probably they might never be in Dover again, no action was taken with regard to them. All those men were served with refreshment by Mr. Gardner's barman, and the whole of the liquor was paid for by Louise Monteny, the quartermaster of the Henrietta, who was the only one of them who could speak English. James Flinn, of 10, Oxenden Street, was summoned, charged with being on the premises during closed hours. It was stated that he came there to bring a bag and papers for a Dutch pilot who had arrived by the Red Star liner. It was totally unnecessary that James Flinn should have been on the premises at all. He was supplied with liquor. He might have delivered what ever he had to deliver, to the servant, and he being on the premises and being supplied with refreshment during prohibited hours was, he contended, an infringement of the law.

Police Sergeant J. W. Figg said: I visited the “Swan Hotel” on Sunday, march 24th, at 10.25 in the morning. I was accompanied by P.C. Ovenden. I was admitted at the hotel entrance by Mr. Gardner. I tapped on the door. It was fastened, and Mr. Gardner opened it immediately. I went in with P.C. Ovenden. In the front bar I saw six men, and in front of them, on the counter, glasses containing liquor, consisting of ale, stout, and malt liquor. Mr. Gardner remained in the hall, which is separated from where the men were. The barman was in the serving bar. I asked Mr. Gardner how he accounted for them being there; if he knew to what they belonged. He said they were Belgians, and all came in together with Quartermaster Monteny, of the “Marie Henrietta.” They were all sailors. Mr. Gardner spoke to them, and found they could only speak Flemish, except Monteny. Monteny said that the men were his friends, and he had brought them in with him, and that he had ordered the drink and paid for it, as he thought he was allowed to do so. Mr. Gardner asked the men in Flemish where they came from, and four of them said that they belonged to the “Alphonse,” an Ostend trawler that was in the Granville Dock damaged, and that the other two men belonged to the “Marie Henrietta,” an Ostend mail boat was alongside the Admiralty Pier, having arrived at 3.10 in the morning, leaving again with the 11 o'clock service. Mr. Gardner said that these men came in in his absence, and the barman had served them thinking they belonged to the “Marie Henrietta,” as the orders were all given by the Quartermaster, but had he been there he would have questioned them as to which vessel they belonged to. The trawler had been in the dock for at least two days, to my knowledge. She came in for repairs. After the men left Quartermaster Monteny gave me the men's names written on paper. Before I left I went into the back parlour and found Mr. Flinn, employed at Messrs. Hammond and Co. office. He was standing in the room, waiting. I asked Mr. Gardner what he was doing there, and he said that he was there on business, having brought a bag of papers and some letters, and was waiting to see a Dutch pilot of the Red Star line. Mr. Gardner said that the pilot was staying at the house. I did not see him. At that time I did not see any drink on the table in the back parlour. Afterwards I went through further into the next bar and when I came back I noticed two glasses standing on the table in the back parlour, where Flinn still was. One glass contained malt liquor, and the other apparently wine. The sailors were leaving the house at the time, and I went outside to get their names.

The Chairman: Were they wearing any name round their cape?

Witness: No, the four men who belong to the Alphonse had no names on their caps. They were dressed as fishermen, with sea boots and guernseys. The Belgian seaman had no badges on. He was charged on the summons only in reference to one case, that of Mr. Flinn, and he should like an adjournment if they were going to deal with more.

On the summons being examined it was found that Mr. Gardner was charged with selling to “a person.”

Mr. Gardner said that as the corresponding summons was to Mr. Flinn, he submitted that the two would naturally be taken together. If the case of the sailors was to be gone into, he should ask for an adjournment.

Mr. Knocker said that Mr. Flinn was only summoned for being on the premises after closing time, and Mr. Gardner was not charged with serving him.

Mr. Mowll said that as watching the case, he might be permitted to say that the form of summons as printed was for selling to “persons.” Evidently, the prosecution in this case contemplated dealing with one person only, because the form of the summons had been carefully altered to “a person.”

Mr. Vidler, the Magistrate's Clerk, informed the Magistrates that he altered the form of the summons as he thought it was only in reference to one person.

Mr. Knocker said that the instructions were simply to issue a summons against Mr. Gardner for opening his premises during closing hours. He knew the form of summons as issued, but he thought it would be right, as there was only evidence of the sale of intoxicating liquors to one person, the Quartermaster, and he was, therefore, satisfied with the summons.

The Chairman said that there was nothing in the summons to say who it was Mr. Gardner was charged with serving, but with the two summonses being listed, it would look to any stranger as if it did couple the two.

Mr. Mowll agreed that any stranger would couple them as the person referred to in the summons.

The Chairman asked Mr. Gardner if he wished an adjournment in order to defend himself against the allegations of serving the Belgians.

Mr. Gardner said he was not as all desirous of taking a trivial objection but it would be appreciated that he had practically no notice of this charge.

The Chairman asked if his conscience did not tell him what the summons meant?

Mr. Gardner said no, and he had not the opportunity of getting any witnesses.

The Chairman said that they would give that opportunity.

After some discussion it was decided to amend the summons to its original form.

The Chairman asked if Monday would suit for the adjournment.

Mr. Gardner said it would not give him time to get his witnesses.

The Chairman adjourned the case till next Friday, remarking that Mr. Gardner would not get the “Alphonse” even then.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 19 April, 1907. Price 1d.

THE SWAN HOTEL

The case of the “Swan Hotel” came up on adjournment in which Mr. Ernest Gardner, the landlord was summoned for on Saturday 24th March selling liquors to persons during the hours the house should have been closed.

Mr. Reginald Knocker appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Rutley Mowll was present to watch the hearing on behalf of the owners.

Dr. Hardman, of Deal, attended on behalf of Mr. Coulter and at the request of Dr. Hardman was asked to sit by them instead of standing in the usual place. It was pointed out that it was unusual but the Chairman said that they would make allowances.

Police Sergeant Figg corrected his forms and said now by saying that the outer doorway was open but the inside door was closed. It was ultimately opened when he knocked.

In reply to Mr. Knocker, the witness said that the door was usually closed on Sunday. The door leading into the street on the opposite side of the bar was unfastened, and the men opened it themselves and went out.

By Dr. Hardman: The doors of hotels are usually closed during closing hours.

Dr. Hardman: If you went to the “Lord Warden” would you not find the door open?

You might find the outer one open but the inner closed.

Do you mean locked or closed? Do you mean that a visitor staying at the “Grand” or the “Lord Warden” would not get in without ringing on Sunday morning?

He might not.

Witness continuing said: The Police in Dover make inspections of public houses on Sunday mornings. Is this the usual thing and licensed victuallers might responsibly expect the Police at any time on a Sunday morning. The Quartermaster said he brought the men in that part for the drinks. I might say that that was true or not.

Mr. Vidler: That did not include Mr. Flynn?

Dr. Hardman: No.

Witness in reply to further questions said the six men were Belgians and looked like sailors. Mr. Gardner said that he had been temporarily absent when they were served. The four smacksmen consumed liquor in Mr. Gardner's presence. They finished their drink. I know that Mr. Flinn was employed at Messrs. Hammond and Co's shipping agent. The “Swan” is a house where pilots often stay. I did not see the pilot that Flinn said he came to see. I did not disbelieve it. Mr. Flinn and Mr. Gardner were talking together. When I went in there was no liquor there, but when I went in the second time the drink was standing there but I did not see it brought in, because I went out to get the names of the other men. The smoking room and the bar can be seen from the passage within the inner door but not from the outer door. There was no attempt to hide anything. I believed the statements that Mr. Gardner and Mr. Flinn made.

Police Constable Oxenden was called to give corroborative evidence. He said that on Sunday 24th March, I was with Police Serrgeant Figg when he visited the “Swan” at 1025 a.m. We passed through the outer door, and knocked at the inner door, and it was opened but I do not think it had been secured. I saw six sailors at the bar, two from the Belgium mail boat and four from the Alphonse, steam trawler. When Mr. Gardner came in Sergeant Figg called attention to the six men. He said that they had been served by the barman, and he said, “They are all right, are not they?” Sergt. Figg replied, “I don't know, I shall have to report it.” My impression was that Mr. Gardner thought the men were all right. The barman said that the Quartermaster of the Belgium steamer had paid for all the drinks. I did not go in the bar parlour. I saw Flinn there. I heard Mr. Gardner say Flinn was there on business for a pilot. I say Mr. Gardner take the drink through from the bar to the smoking room, two glasses.

Cross examined by Dr. Hardman: I don't know whether the inner door had a bolt. From the passage you can see part of the bar and part of the smoking room. As far as I know what was told us was true. There was no attempt at secrecy.

Mr. Hardman said that the evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that six men came into the hotel, and they were admittedly travellers and entitles to be served, that one ordered drinks for the four and paid for them. For the defence they did not deny that the six persons had liquor at the order and cost of the Quartermaster, and it was a point of law that a bona fide traveller was entitled to pay for liquor for his friends. He would quote the legal authorities to that effect and he asked them to decide that no case had been made out. He referred to the case of Oliver and London which was a case where a bona fide traveller ordered and paid for liquor to two friends, who were known not to be bona fide travellers, and that was held not in constitute a question of the statute.

The Chairman said that a foreigner had not understood that he should not have drunk on a Sunday.

Dr. Hardman: I will submit that either an Englishman or a foreigner who is a bona fide traveller is entitled to entertain his friends. In the case of Pineo and Bond the justices convicted because they thought the case could be very easily attained and existed but the Court above said they had nothing to do with anything and squashed the convictions. There were a number of cases which fully supported the statement that a bona fide traveller was entitled to entertain his friends in liquor they did not pass.

Mr. R. Knocker said that he could not say anything beyond something he could call in evidence, but, the case was closed. If the Magistrates were satisfied that the Quartermaster paying for the drinks caused the men to be friends of course they would be so.

Dr. Hardman said that his case was that four men came into the house were the Quartermaster's friends.

The magistrates after referring and considering the objections for a considerable time returned and asked if the barman was going to be called.

Dr. Hardman said that on March 26th, two days after the occurrence the barman, a Swiss received a telegram informing him that his mother who was seriously ill was much worse, and asking him to return at once, and he at once left, and was now in Switzerland. Dr. Hardman handed to the Magistrates the telegram which was received.

In reply to the Chairman it was stated that the prosecution was not instituted until April1st.

The Chairman after consulting his colleagues again, said that they had looked into it very carefully, and Dr. Hardman's objection was fatal to the case, and therefore there would be no alternative but to dismiss the case as it stood. In regard to the action of the Police to the matter, he might say there was nothing but commiseration for them, as it was an extremely suspicious case on the face of it and they took the right course.

Mr. Gardner said he would like to say that what they did they did in a businesslike way and with perfect courtesy.

The Chairman: I should not say anything more about it. You have got rid of it. (Laughter.)

The magistrate's Clerk reminded the Chairman that there was also the summons against Flinn.

The Chairman said that would be withdrawn.

Mr. Hardman said that he was charged with an entirely separate offence.

The Chairman said that he did not know that, but was it worth going into that?

Dr. Hardman said that it was the same thing entirely.

Mr. Knocker said that the Magistrates had to be satisfied that he had a reasonable explanation for being on the premises.

The Chairman said that they were satisfied in the matter, but he might say that in doing it, the Magistrates only did it by a majority.

Dr. Hardman said that there was no question but that Mr. Flynn was a private friend of Mr. Gardner's and therefore would show that he was there on business. He did not order any drinks and did not pay for any drink.

The Chairman said that he did not think it would be necessary going on.

Mr. Knocker said that he would have nothing to say if the case was dismissed but he did not ask for the case to be allowed to be withdrawn. He would put himself in their hands, and if they dismissed the case he would be satisfied.

The Chairman: What do you prefer?

Mr. Knocker: I prefer rather than I should be asked to withdraw it, that it should be dismissed.

The Chairman: Very well, it is dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 15 January, 1909.

LICENSING BUSINESS

The licence of the "Rose Inn," Broadstairs, was temporarily transferred to Mr. Holness, who some years ago kept the "Swan Hotel," Dover. (He kept the pub in 1901.)

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 11 February, 1910.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS - SWAN HOTEL.

Mr. Mowll stated that the Swan Hotel had been held under two titles, and the lease of one of them had fallen in. This necessitated some alterations to the ground floor.

In reply to the Magistrate's Clerk, Mr. Mowll said that with the cottage there were a certain number of extra bedrooms. There would be no extra entrances.

LICENSEE LIST

ELLIOTT Master 1662

FLEMING (widow) 1713+

MARTIN Edwin 1791-93

ELLIS John 1805-28+