52 London Road (Buckland Street)
Long closed Britannia, photo circa 1980 by Barry Smith.
Above image from Google maps showing the same premises, July 2009.
Active in 1841 but by 1878 the sign had changed to "Volunteer".
From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General
Advertiser, Saturday 30 January, 1841. Price 5d.
DOVER POLICE COURT
William Burville was charged with assaulting George Pudney of the
"Britannia," public-house. from the deposition of the complainant, the
assault appears to have arisen from the defendant's having gone into
Pudney's house in an intoxicated state, at a late hour in he evening,
and requested to have some beer. Defendant denied the assault; but
Price, policeman, said that he saw the assault committed, and Pudney
complained of being much hurt. Mrs. Alton also said that Burville said
he would murder Pudney. - Fined 3s. and 10s. costs.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
Saturday 7 July, 1860.
Infringement Public House License.
Henry Langley, landlord of the Britannia public house, Buckland was
summoned for infringing his license on the 1st. inst. He was fined 10s
and 10s costs.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
Saturday 31 January, 1868.
Charlotte Catherine Wilson, 14, and Margaret Nuttall, was charged
with stealing from the house of Mrs. Ann Markwick, the "Britannia,"
Buckland, 3s. 6d. in money.
Wilson pleaded guilty and was sent to prison for 32 days and was to
go to a reformatory afterwards for 2 years.
Nuttall was dismissed with a caution.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 April, 1870.
Benjamin Pater, a pork butcher, carrying on business in Limekiln Street,
was summoned for an assault on Mary Stanley, a middle aged woman, who
had been lodging in his house.
It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Stanley, who said that she got her
living by needle-work that she had been lodging at the house of the
defendant for the past five months, during which time she had got behind
with her rent. On Tuesday night, at about half-past eleven o’clock,
after she was in bed, the defendant came to her room, and throwing the
door open ordered her to get out of bed and leave the house at once. She
complained of being called upon to leave the house in the middle of the
night, and told the defendant he should have either requested her to
leave the night before, or have waited till the morning. He persisted,
however, that she must get up directly, and he scarcely permitted her to
get on her clothes. She had scarcely finished dressing, when he threw
her her bonnet and cloak, and taking her by the shoulders pushed her out
of the room, down the stairs, and out of the house. There were some
things in the room belonging to other persons, and she wished to take
them away, but he refused. When she found herself outside the house, it
was nearly one o’clock in the morning, and she could find no house open
where she could obtain a lodging. She walked in the direction of
Buckland, and a policeman on duty there told her he would see she was
not interfered with if she remained there, and she sat down on a step
By the defendant: When you came to my bedroom door you did not, before
opening it, ask where my daughter was, and I did not tell you she had
gone to get her living.
There being no witness in support of the complaint.
The defendant made no reply. He did not deny turning the complainant out
of doors, but sought to justify what he had done. The complainant came
to his house, and hired an apartment, stating that she had a couple of
daughters in her service, and obtained her own living by needlework. It
was not long, however, before one of her daughters came to live with
her; and his attention had been drawn to the fact that her daughter was
a good deal away from home at night. He had also seen a man peering in
at the doorway. Knowing what he did about recent acts of Parliament, he
had no desire to have his house “spotted” by the police, and he was
therefore required to act upon the first evidence he could get and turn
the complainant and her daughter out of his house, if he should
ascertain that the latter was leading an immoral life. Finding that the
daughter had not come home at twelve o’clock on the night in question,
he went to the door of the complainant’s room, but did not throw it open
at first as she had stated. He asked her where her daughter was, and she
said that she had “gone to get her living.” He took that to mean that
she was out for an improper purpose; and in his examination he acted
rather more precipitately than he intended, and forcibly turned her out.
James Bootland, a married man, in the employ of Mr. Laws, of Frith Farm,
said he lodged at Pater’s house. He heard all the passed on the night in
question. At first of all he heard Pater ask the complainant where her
daughter was. She replied in the terms already referred to, and the
defendant then said, “Then out of this house you go, for I will not have
my house disgraced by you, or anybody else.” The witness stated that
from his own knowledge the girl in question was getting her living by
improper means, and was at that moment lodging at a public-house at
The complainant said it was true that her daughter was at present at the
“Britannia” public-house, at Buckland; but she was there to do
needlework for the landlady. She was there on the night in question, and
in consequence of the lateness of the hour when she had finished her
work, she remained all night. If ever her daughter had remained out all
night it was owing to the like circumstances. The girl was
well-conducted, and she was going to a situation that very day. As for
Bootland, he had endeavoured to lead the girl astray, and because she
would not consent to his solicitations, he had come before the bench to
The girl, who was in Court, was then called forward. She said that she
got her living by doing needle work, and had been working for the past
week for the landlady of the “Britannia.” It was not true that she had
ever done wrong; but, if she had not, it was no fault of Bootland’s, as
he had wanted to take a room for her; and when he found that she would
not yield to his attempts at persuasion, he tried to threaten her, and
told her the detectives from London were after her.
The Magistrates asked her how long she had been out of a situation?
She replied three months – to her sorrow.
Bootland, who appeared to be a respectable man, declared that the
statements made by the girl were devoid of the slightest foundation.
The Magistrates said that an assault had undoubtedly been committed, and
they thought, whatever the facts of the case were, that the defendant
would have done better, had he allowed the complainant to remain in the
house till the morning. A small fine, however, would meet the case, and
they therefore fined him 2s. 6d., and the costs, 10s. 6d. As to Miss
Stanley, they would advise her to set her situation as quickly as
The defendant thought he had been very hardly treated; but the
Magistrates told him he had infringed the law, and it was impossible to
deal with him more leniently.
Mrs. Stanley asked how she was to recover her goods, and was informed
that she must proceed by means of the County Court.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
3 February, 1871. Price 1d.
CHARGE OF STEALING
Thursday. [Before J. F. Crookes, and W. Mowll, Esq.]
Douglas Wood and George Edwin Wood, a couple of young men about 18 or
19 years of age, were charged on suspicion of stealing some cigars, the
property of Mary Ann Gooderson, residing at the "Britannia Inn," High
Police-constable William Ash said he apprehended the prisoners on the
same morning. He told them he should take them into custody on suspicion
of stealing some cigars, and they said they had bought them.
The prisoners asked for a remand in order that they might bring up
some witnesses to prove that they had bought the cigars on the previous
day off a sailor at the pier.
The Magistrates granted a remand till Monday next.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 February, 1871. Price 1d.
REMANDED CHARGE OF BURGLARY
The two men, Douglas Wood and George Edwin Wood, whose case had been
remanded on the previous day, were again brought up, and the evidence
was proceeded with.
Mr. Page said he wished to contradict a statement he had made I his
evidence on the previous day. He had stated that the gas was burning in
the hall when he first came down stairs; but, in all probability, owing
to the confused state of his mind, he had not particularly noticed
whether it was burning there or not, and hence the mistake.
Police-constable Chapman, whose evidence was proceeding on the previous
day when the case was remanded, now resumed his deposition: When I saw
the younger prisoner (Douglas) in Bench Street, in company with another
man, who went towards the Market Place, where the man was whistling. I
saw the man who was whistling cross the Market Place and join the
younger prisoner at the “Antwerp” corner, and they went up Cannon Street
The prisoner Douglas Wood: I first saw you in Bench Street, near Mr.
Lukey’s. I afterwards followed you up. I was close enough to swear that
you joined the man who had been whistling.
By the elder prisoner: I can swear that the man who was whistling had
dark clothes on, and wore a felt hat. I followed him across the Market
and saw him join Douglas Wood and the other man at the “Antwerp” corner,
after which all of them went up Cannon Street.
Chapman here said that there had been a misapprehension of his evidence
on the previous day. The place where the elder prisoner first stopped
was about 2 or 3 feet from the place where the cruet was found, close to
the heap of bricks.
By the elder prisoner: I was about 10 or 12 yards behind you when I saw
you halt. I know how a portion of this property was found. I did not
find it myself; but I saw Sergeant Stevens pick it up.
Examination continued: The prisoner Douglas Wood was also at the
“Britannia Inn” when I apprehended the elder prisoner.
Francis Shipley: I keep the “Chance,” in Adrian Street. I have seen the
two prisoners before. I saw them on Wednesday night, at my house. It was
pretty near 12 o’clock. I was waiting up for some lodgers, and they did
not leave until two o’clock. They were together for some time. There
were three of them; but I do not know who the other man was.
By the elder prisoner: I had seen the other man before; but I had not
previously seen you. You were not drunk when you were in my house. I
drew you two quarts of ale. I did not see anything wrong going on
The prisoners, on being called on for their reply, denied that they were
guilty, and called the following witnesses.
Anne Marwick, examined by Douglas Wood, said: I reside in the “Britannia
Inn,” at Buckland. My husband’s name is Stephen Marwick. I remember the
day the soldiers went away. I remember your going to the cupboard. You
cut off a piece of pork. I saw you put some mustard on it, and I think
you gave some to George Edwin Wood. You had a piece of ham in your
pocket in a piece of paper.
By the Magistrates’ Clerk: The prisoner George Edwin Wood has been
staying at my house since Monday night. The prisoner Douglas Wood has
been lodging with me for 8 months. The prisoner did not both occupy the
same bedroom. I do not know who the bags belong to. The man who is not
here and the taller of the two prisoners (George Edwin Wood) brought the
bags in together.
The prisoner G. E. Wood then called Sarah Woodward, who was examined by
the Court, and said; I am a single woman. I have lodged there since
By the prisoner G. E. Wood: I remember the scarf produced. You leant it
me on Wednesday evening. I gave it you the next morning, when you were
wearing the handcuffs. I also buttoned up your coat, because you
complained of being cold. You asked me for tin in the presence of a
policeman. I slept in the next room to you. The two bags produced were
in the same room I slept in. they were on the table, and were not in any
way concealed. Anyone who went into the room could see them. You did not
come into my room during that night or the next morning. I do not know
whether the bags were locked or not.
By the Court: Another young man slept in the same room with me that
night; but I do not know his name. He remained with me all night.
By the Bench: I have lodged at the “Britannia” one or two nights before.
Police-constable George Ash, examined by the elder prisoner: I
apprehended you in a room on the left hand side, going up stairs, and I
partly searched you. I searched in the overcoat pocket and found what I
was looking for. I took the coat you have on now down stairs with me. I
also felt in the pockets of your other coat.
Examined by the younger prisoner: I found you asleep lying on the floor.
Your head might have been lying on the chair; but your body was on the
The Magistrates committed the prisoners to take their trial at the
Maidstone Assizes, to be held on the 13th of March.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 September, 1871. Price 1d.
ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING THE BRITANNIA BUCKLAND
In this case the license was renewed to Mr. Stephen Markwick; but the
Magistrates reminded him that it had transpired, in a case which had
come before the Bench during the year, that thieves were harboured in
Mr. Markwick said that the parties were there only one night. He was
proceeding with some further observations when the Magistrates told him
that he had better not attempt to justify himself, or they would be
compelled to dismiss the case upon its merits, and this might result it
his license being taken away. The Magistrates desired to mention the
matter, as a warning to him for the future.
PUDNEY George 1841-47
LANGLEY Henry 1860
MARKWICK Stephen 1871
GOLDSACK William Sept/1872+
SHILSON George 1874
RUSSELL Robert 1874 (name given as Britannia
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Dover Express