138 Beach Street
29 Beach Street
Above photo shows the Crown in Deal in 1834. Kindly supplied by Stuart Kinnon.
From the Kentish Post or Canterbury News-Letter,
August 22-25, 1730. Kindly sent from Alec Hasenson.
To be sold by auction at the Sign of the Three Kings in
Deal, on Monday the 17th
Day of September next, in one Lot, the several Public Houses following,
at Deal, viz. the Sign of the Crown, late in the occupation of the widow
Brockman; the Sign of the Bricklayer’s Arms, now in the occupation of
Forrest; the Sign of the Unicorn, in the occupation of Henry Hillgrove;
the Sign of
the Fleece, in the occupation of John Wealand; the Sign of the Globe, in
occupation of Stephen Norris; and the Sign of the Carpenter’s Arms, in
the occupation of William Savine; with another Tenement adjoining, in
the occupation of Nicholas Ladd: the first of which Houses is Freehold,
the two next are Leasehold for eleven years, renewable on a small fine
certain, and the rest Leasehold from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
From the East Kent Mercury, 28th December 2000
The "Crown Inn" was one of several hostelries which once stood on the
sea side of Beach Street, until demolished for the extensions to the new
north promenade created in the 1920s (photo via F. A. Collyer.) Further
information states that the pub was situated at the southern end of
The picture above
shows on the left is the "Crown Inn." The information that went with the
picture says that it was in the vicinity of Brewer Street and Farrier
Street and that the houses shown in the centre have now been demolished.
A J Langridge's research in 1977 mentions that another "Crown
Inn" was situated in
Church Path, Upper Deal.
Another pub mentioned as being at Church Path, (number 164) is the "Bowling
The Deal History Society have dated this pub to 1776, but I believe from
the above article that appeared in the Kentish Post that it existed earlier
than this date, certainly as early as 1730 and it seems it was for sale
then, probably earlier.
Deal Borough Records show the following entry:- MS Council's Opinion 18th
November 1776 - by Geo. Rowe, Inner Temple.
In the town and Borough of Deal are 30 Publick Houses including
taverns and Inns, 18 whereof have stabling fit for the accommodation of
Dragoons and horses and the other 12 have no stabling at all.
These dragoons (12 or 13 in all) were to assist the Officers of the
Revenue at Deal.
The following houses refused to billet the Dragoons for lack of
The Crown was mentioned in this list.
Glover and Rogers have found documents going back to 1680 and 1683
stating that Stephen Norrington, Carpenter has his property near to the sign
of the "Crown" North Deal in his will.
From the Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury,
24 February, 1872.
ABUSING A LANDLORD
Stephen Pritchard and George Goldsack appeared to a summons which had
been issued against them by Mr. W. H. R. Clayton, the landlord of the
"Crown Inn," Beach Street, for having on the 20th inst. used very
abusive and threatening language towards him, and refusing to leave his
house when requested to do so. From this and other conduct the
complainant feared he should be tempted to commit a breach of the peace,
and he therefore prayed that the defendants might be called upon to show
cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Till, of the firm of Messrs. Minter and Till, of Folkestone,
appeared for Mr. Clayton, and in stating the cause to the Magistrates
said that for some time Mr. Clayton had been annoyed by one of the
defendants, and on Tuesday last the two went into his house about one in
the daytime, and after having called for something to drink they
commenced to talk the foulest possible language between each other and
to each other, but against Mr. Clayton. So foul was the language the
defendants used that Mr. Clayton ordered his barmaid to leave the bar,
and she did so. He then asked the defendants in the quietest manner to
leave his house - that was, he done his duty, - and told them that if
they used such language they must go outside for he could not allow it
in his house. In doing that Mr. Clayson was only doing what the law put
upon him, and he only carried out the duty he was called upon to carry
out, viz. to prevent obscene language. The defendants, however, refused
to leave and Pritchard repeatedly used words which when the Bench came
to hear them he (Mr. Till) thought they would consider where calculated
to incite a breach of the peace. Pritchard did not stop here for he not
only threatened to hurt Mr. Clayton, but he challenged him to go to the
Esplanade to fight. Mr. Clayton, like a sensible man, refused to do
anything of the kind, and the defendants remained there for some time
during which the complainant endured every possible amount of
blackguardism which the two defendants could heap upon him. Eventually
the police were sent for by Mr. Clayton, and after P.C. Spicer arrived
there the defendant Goldsack said the first time he caught Mr. Clayton
in the streets he would break his face, and the constable eventually
induced the men to leave. These were the circumstances of the case and
he (Mr. Till) conceived that if he proved these facts the Magistrates
would consider that complainant was fully entitled to that protection
which he now sought from the Bench, for doing that which if he had not
done the Bench, according to their duty, would have punished him for not
The learned gentleman then called, Mr. Clayton who deposed: I am the
landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach Street, Deal, and have been so for
the last 15 months' - worst luck. I remember the defendants coming into
my house on Tuesday last at about one o'clock in the afternoon. They
came to the front of the bar and had something to drink, and I asked
them to move to the other side as the brewer was coming in and they were
rather in the way where they stood. They moved away. I knew Pritchard
before because he had been into my house on a previous occasion and
insulted the people in the parlour, and I knew him again. My attention
was drawn to him as he was talking to Goldsack. He was insinuating
something to him about me and the barmaid. He said, "You had better go
and mind your wife, and not go with the barmaid." Goldsack did not say
anything to me at the time, but both of them were using indecent
language to each other. I cannot say the exact words they used they are
so indecent. I asked them quietly to stop that talking. I did not at any
time use any bad language to them. When I asked them to leave off
talking Pritchard said "You ____ monkey, I will smash your head in" and
held his fist up to me and challenged me to go out on the Esplanade to
fight. I said I would not go out and make a blackguard of myself. The
defendant continued to make use of bad and threatening language and I
sent for the police, and Sergt. Spicer came. I pointed the defendant out
to Spicer and asked him to remove them for their abusive language and I
also told him they had been threatening me. After this Goldsack said
"The first time I catch you in the street I will smash your face," and I
called the constable's attention to the observation. They still refused
to leave the house, but after a time the constable persuaded them to go.
I go in fear that they cause me to commit a breach of the peace, and I
therefore ask that they may be called upon to find sureties.
By the Court: The men had had a glass or two before they came in, but
they were not drunk.
Cross-examined by Pritchard: I can't tell the exact time you came
into my house, but it might have been about 11. I did not say that I
would knock your _____ head off for using bad language. I did after you
had threatened me. When I charge you with using foul language you did
not say, "I beg your pardon, I am not in the habit of doing so. I am a
father of a family myself." I was only in the bar two minutes before I
heard your bad language. You were sitting on an empty cask in front of
the bar, in the lobby or passage. I will swear that you did not say what
you have stated. I accuses you of using bad language. I distinctly swear
to that. You have been in my house once before and then you created a
disturbance in the parlour.
By Goldsack: I never saw you in my house before. You are summonsed
for threatening to smash my face in.
William James said: I am a servant in the employ of Mr. Clayton at
the "Crown Inn," Deal, and was there on Tuesday last. I saw two men
named Prichard and Goldsack in front of the bar somewhere between twelve
and one. I did not see them come in. I heard them make use of very
abusive language to Mr. Clayton and also filthy language. (The witness
here mentioned one of the beastly remarks.) That language was made use
of in the hearing of the barmaid, and Mr. Clayton sent her out of the
bar in consequence. Pritchard called Mr. Clayton a " ______ monkey" and
Goldsack said he would like to smash his nose in. Pritchard also said to
Mr. Clayton "if you only come outside I would give you a hammering." My
Clayton said he would not leave the bar, but wished them to leave the
house. They would not do so but kept on calling him names. I went and
fetched the police, and after Spicer got there Goldsack threatened to
punch, or smash, Mr. Claytons' head in when he caught him out, or words
to that effect. I believe that Spicer heard that. I never heard
Pritchard make an apology or deny that he had made use of bad language -
I will swear he did not do so while I was there, and I was only absent
the short time while I went for the police and a minute or two when I
went down in the cellar, where every word could be heard.
Cross-examined by Pritchard: I did not hear Mr. Clayton threaten to
knock your head off. I did not hear Clayton make use of any threat. I
saw him jump over the counter, and heard him ask the barmaid to retire,
because of the bad language used.
Caroline Piggott, the barmaid, was next sworn, and corroborated the
evidence of the complainant and the last witness. The defendants, she
said, made use of very filthy language indeed, and Mr. Clayton ordered
her to leave the bar in consequence.
P.S. Spicer deposed: I was called to go to the "Crown Inn" on Tuesday
last by the witness James. When I got to the house I found about twenty
boys round the door, I drove them away before I went in. When I got in I
saw defendants and two other men standing in front of the bar. Mr.
Clayton requested me to remove these men, and said Pritchard had been
using abusive language, and Pritchard complained of the landlord having
challenged him out to fight. Mr. Clayton called my attention to
something that Goldsack said, and said he said he would punch his (Mr.
Clayton's) head, or words to that effect, but I did not hear Goldsack
make the remark, as I was in the passage at the time. Goldsack denied
having used the words, and said he had not insulted anyone. At last I
persuaded the defendants to leave, and I told Mr. Clayson that the
mildest way, if they had insulted him, was to take out a summons, and I
said the same to Pritchard.
Cross-examined by Pritchard: I could not say that either of you were
the worse for drink.
By the Court: All the people were very much excited.
In defence, Pritchard said that while he was standing at the bar
complainant came in like a madman and jumped over the bar-counter. He
then charged him with using bad language, but he (Pritchard) told him he
never did such a thing, and that he never allowed it even in his own
tap-room, as he had daughters of his own. The first time Clayton said
was that he would knock his nose off, and he (defendant) said, "Let us
go out and see about that. I am not going to have that done quietly, and
you must do it fair and honest." Goldsack never spoke a word either one
way or the other, and he is quite innocent of everything.
The Court was then cleared, and the Magistrates deliberated in
private for some little time. On the re-admission of the public, the
Mayor said the Magistrates had given this case their careful attention,
and they were of opinion that there was disorderly conduct to a certain
extent on the part of both Pritchard and Goldsack. They were at one time
requested to leave and they should have done so then, without
necessitating the police being sent for. The magistrates had decided
that Pritchard should find one surety of £5, and he bound himself in the
same sum to keep the peace towards Mr. Clayton and all her Majesty's
subjects for three months, and that Goldsack should enter into his own
recognizance's for the same amount and for the same period. The
defendants should also have to pay the costs.
POLICE COURT 4th May 1872.
Mr. CLAYTON, Landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach St, Deal, in an excited
manner, asked permission to address a few words to the Bench. He said
that during his absence from home on Tuesday last, Sergeant Spicer had
visited his house and charged him with harbouring disorderly characters
and keeping his house open at improper hours. He was fully aware that he
had an enemy somewhere and he was determined to find them out and
prosecute them. He had been annoyed ever since he had been in Deal. He
was glad to say he was about to leave the town. He then left the Court.
From the Whitstable Times and Herne
Bay Herald, Saturday 4 October, 1873.
On Wednesday morning last, an accident befel Mrs. Attersole, an old
lady, who is very infirm and deaf. It appears that she went into the
"Crown Inn," Beach Street, to fetch some beer for her lunch, and on
leaving she became giddy, and did not hear a vehicle which was coming
from the south. The horse's head was abreast of the door when Mrs.
Attersole came out of the house, and she was knocked down, the wheel
passing over her legs. The carriage in question was driven by Dr. Hulke,
to whom not the slightest blame can be attached, as it was entirely
owing to the deafness of the old lady that the accident happened. Both
Mrs. Atterersole's legs were injured, and she was likewise bruised about
the body and head and very much shaken. Dr. Hulke has paid the old lady
[Jeff Burgher, who kindly sent me the above goes on to say that:-
The article is about my forebear Ann Attersoll nee Abbott in 1873. As
she lived in Farrier Street, this would have been her local.
Further information says the following:- I saw that a lot of the
detail on your site involved my cousin David Collyer who seems to have
contributed a lot. Apparently he was a good talker about Deal area
hotels and enjoyed a drop with his tales. Apparently he died in 2004-5.
An interesting sidelight to this news story, which David may never
have known, is that Ann Attersoll b.1797-d.1880 (so she survived her
ordeal in 1873), was David G Collyer's Great Great Grandmother. She was
the wife of Samuel Attersoll, b. 1788, a Deal Tailor. His father, also
Samuel Attersoll b. c.1760-63 was described in several of his children's
marriage etc certificates - in 1808 as a vintner and in 1863 as an
Innkeeper. I don't know which Inn. I doubt David knew that.
Samuel senior spent most of his adult life in Deal, although born
near Margate and was originally a hairdresser by trade, becoming a
Freeman of Deal in 1803.
The Ann Attersoll, who the news story was about, wife of Samuel Jr,
had 11 children in Deal. Their 7th child was Adelaide Attersoll who
married George Wright Collyer a Deal builder which is how both David and
I are connected. We never met, although I will be in Deal this July to
I don't know what the Wesleyan Methodists (which they all were)
would have made of these pub connections, but there you are.]
From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury,
20 March, 1875. 1d.
Mr. E. Elridge, landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach Street, applied
for permission to keep his house open until twelve o'clock on Wednesday
next, on the occasion of a harmonic meeting. Permission was granted.
In 1908 the pub was de-licensed and put up for auction and eventually
bought by the Deal Council in 1912 was briefly used for the Liberal men's
Reading Rooms, but was finally demolished for road widening.
From the East Kent Mercury, Thursday 1 December, 2010.
ONCE UPON A TIME A CROWN COULD BE FOUND ON THE BEACH
NOW AND THEN: The former Crown Inn, (top), was bought by Deal council
in 1912 and later demolished for road widening Picture: Terry Scall
PEBBLES, benches and seagulls now occupy the stretch of Beach Street
in Deal where the "Crown" once stood.
The old picture was probably taken about 1900 in the times when
buildings occupied both sides of the road.
An old map reveals that the public house stood between junctions with
Farrier Street and Coppen Street, now called Coppin Street, with the
back of the building virtually on the seashore.
Deal Borough Council bought many properties on the seaward side of
the seafront for road widening.
The only one remaining now is The Royal Hotel.
According to The Old Pubs of Deal and Walmer (with Kingsdown and
Mongeham), the Crown was mentioned in documents dating back to 1680.
Esua Griffiths was the "victualler" in 1727 and in 1746 the landlord was
Other landlords in various journals wrote about what was happening in
the area during their time in the pub, including bad storms, the numbers
of ships anchored on The Downs and seagoers who came to drink and maybe
stay in the Crown.
One wrote in December 1838 that the pub was packed with customers and
the beach was full of coal.
The old picture shows the pub with outbuildings on the seaside and a
variety of posters on the wall, at a time when George Beer and Co,
Canterbury Ales and Beers, was in charge.
Its life as a pub ended in 1909 and the following year it was put up
for auction - the advertisement appeared in this newspaper.
Goods for sale included French bedsteads, mahogany and walnut
marble-top washstands, corking machines, dining room furniture, Brussels
and tapestry carpets, a ping-pong table, meat safes and even
The pub temporarily became the Liberal Men's Reading Rooms before
eventually bought by Deal council in 1912 and demolished.
GRIFFITHS Esau 1727+
BROCKMAN (widow) 1730
WYBORN John 1746+
VILES Alex 1776+
HARWOOD Widow 1804+ (Oak Lane)
SHREWSBURY Trevor 1823-24+
SNOSWELL Thomas 1826+
LEACH Thomas 1828
STAINWELL Thomas 1828+
MARSH Joseph 1831-39+
TANTON George 1836
SINGER Walter/William 1837-40+
STRUPPLES Sophie & Ann 1841
BUTTRESS James 1841
ADAMS Richard Thomas 1845
BROWN John 1847-55+
DENNE Charles 1856-62+
SHARP Richard 1864+
HIGGINS Mrs to Nov/1870
CLAYTON William Robert Heath Nov/1870-Feb/73
KEMP Mr Feb/1873+ (Formerly of Tonbridge)
LANGLEY Thomas 1874+
29 Beach Street)
ERRIDGE Edward 1875-78+
FISHER John Baker 1882-99+
(138 Beach Street)
BULLOCK R A 1904+
FISH J P 1908+
From the Pigot's Directory 1823
From the Pigot's Directory 1824
From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29
From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34
From the Pigot's Directory 1839
From the Pigot's Directory 1840
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Kelly's Directory 1862
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Kelly's Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From Pikes 1908
Deal Licensing Register
The Old Pubs of Deal and Walmer by Glover and Rogers
From the Deal Walmer & Sandwich Mercury