Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Earliest 1869-

Corn Exchange

Latest 1869+




I am not totally sure about this one as to whether it was a public house or not, but I have found reference to it from the Maidstone Telegraph in 1869.

A Corn Exchange was traditionally a building where merchants traded corn, and was popular until the 19th century. During the 20th century this trade became centralised and so many buildings were used for other purposes. However, although I don't yet know of a pub in Kent called the "Corn Exchange" other counties do have pubs with this name.

This was certainly not to be confused for the "Royal Exchange," as that was also mentioned in the report below.


Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 11 September 1869.

Applications for Spirit Licenses.

The "First and Last."

Mr. Colgate applied for a spirit licence for his beer house, the "First and Last," situate in Burham.

Mr. Norton appeared for the applicant and Mr. Prall opposed on behalf of the "Corn Exchange."


Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 11 September 1869.

Applications for Spirit Licenses. The "Flower of Kent."

Mr. Knott applied for a licence for the above house, situated in Burham, within a few rods of Mr. Colgates house. ("First and Last")

Mr. McCarthy Stephenson applied for Mr. Knott, and said that he should also opposed Mr. Colgate, as his client Mr. Knott, was applying for a licence, situated in the same vicinity, but having more accommodation the than Mr. Colgate.

Mr. Prall also opposed on behalf of the "Corn Exchange."

Mr. Norton then opened the case on behalf of Mr. Colegate, and contended that there was plenty of room for another licensed house in the neighbourhood in consequence of the number of houses built since the licence was granted to the last house, and also the increase of the population and the extension of the lime, brick, and other works in the neighbourhood. After describing the situation of the house Mr. Knott proceeded by stating that the beer house for which applied for a licence was a property of his client, and who had expended 150 in converted it into a house fit for a spirit licence. There were only two other licensed houses in the neighbourhood the "Fleur-de-Lis" and the "Royal Exchange" and they were some distance removed from the house for which he now sought a certificate.

Mr. Colgate was then called and spoke to his house being his own property.

Chairman:- How many rooms have you in your house?

Applicant:- One cellar (laughter).

Chairman:- You don't call the cellar a room.

Applicant:- I have 5 rooms on the ground floor, inclusive of kitchen, washhouse, and parlour (laughter). There is a good deal of traffic in the neighbourhood. About 200 people pass my house everyday if they don't go another way (the laughter here was irresistible, and in which the bench was compelled to lose its gravity.)

In cross-examination by Mr. Prall, applicant admitted that there had only been four houses built since his application last year. One had been built by Mr. Sheepwash and two by Mr. Carman; the fourth was an addition to his own house (laughter). He had a memorial signed by the inhabitants; not by the employers of the works at Burham. Did not expect they wanted him to get a licence, as they did not want to see any opposition. He let a part of his house off.

Applicant was then cross-examined by Mr. McCarthy Stephenson, in the course of which he said that Mr. Knott, the other applicant for a licence lived about 100 yards from him. He did not know that Mr. Knott's house was larger and more adapted for a licence then his own. He had some ground in the rear of his house. Mr. Knott certainly had more. Did not know Mr. Knott had a coach-house, or kind of stable.

Mr. Prall then stated his objections for granting the license both against the "First and Last," and against Mr. Knott, the landlord of the "Flower of Kent, which were to the effect that there were two other houses in the immediate neighbourhood the "Royal Exchange," and the "Fleur-de-Lis." With respect to the "Flower of Kent" there was a specific objection, in as much as Mr. Knott had not stated his profession in his notice of application, as enjoined by the Act of Parliament, nor had he signed his name to the notice.

Mr. Stephenson would have contended the point as to profession, as the substance of the notice gave it by describing the applicant as retailer of beer. With respect to Mr. Knott neglecting to sign his name he could not struggle against.

The bench refuse and licence to Mr. Colgate, and the notice of Mr. Knott being informal his application was void.




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