Sort file:- Dover, March, 2021.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 31 March, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1864

Princess Alexandra

Latest 1873

(Name to)

25 Commercial Quay



This daughter of King Christian of Denmark married the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, in 1863. That would seem sufficient reason for George Crimp to be granted a new licence here in 1864. Although his downfall could well have been for selling spirits as a beerhouse.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 5 December, 1863.


George Crimp, landlord of the "Princess Alexandra" public house, Commercial Quay, was summoned for unlawfully refusing to admit to his house Sergeant Barton on Sunday last.

Barton said that at a quarter-past one o'clock on Sunday morning, in consequence of information he received, he went to the house of the defendant. He saw Mrs. Crimp let a man out of the side door into Hall's Passage. He heard several voices in the front room of the house, and finding the door fastened he knocked. Mrs. Crimp came to the door and asked who was there, and he told her, "The police - Sergeant Barton." She asked him what he wanted, and he said he wanted to come in, and that he wished her to open the door. Instead of doing so, she went away, and witness heard her walk through the passage. He stood knocking for the space of thirty minutes, and the door was then opened. On getting into the house he asked Mrs. Crimp why she did not open the door when he first knocked, and she said her husband would not let her. That was said in the presence of the defendant, who made no remark. He then went into the bar, where he saw two young men drinking - one a railway guard and the other a tailor. Mrs. Crimp said they were lodgers. There was a pot on the bar-room table, and two glasses, both with beer in them. In the tap-room there ere a number of pots and glasses, some of them containing beer, with froth on top, as if it had just been poured out. He desired to go upstairs, but the landlord and landlady both refused to allow him. Witness had reason to believe there were other persons in the house. He subsequently went upstairs, but found no one in the public room; but there was a room in which defendant refused to admit him, -

Defendant: Yes, my wife's bedroom.

Sergeant Barton: And at a quarter-past three three persons left the house.

Police-constable Johnson corroborated Barton's evidence. Witness watched the house till a quarter past three when he saw two men and a woman leave by the front door. One of the men had been described by Mrs. Crimp as a lodger. He knew the other man by sight, and the woman was a tradesmen's wife belonging to the town.

Defendant: I left my house, but nobody else.

Johnson: You left at a quarter past two, aft the woman's husband had been to the door, to enquire if his wife was there, and returned at five minutes to three. Twenty minutes afterwards the parties left the house.

The defendant denied having any person in his house and called:

George Hughes, tailor, who said he had temporary lodgings at the "Princess Alexandria" from Friday till Tuesday, the guard also lodged there.

Barton and Johnson both said the witness was one of the men who left the house at a quarter past three. The witness had the married woman on his arm. (A laugh.)

The Bench though the offence clearly proved, and fined the defendant 5s. and costs, 13s. which he paid.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 May, 1864.


George Partridge Crimp, landlord of the "Princess Alexandria" beer-house, Commercial Quay, was charged with selling spirits without a license and also with having spirits on his premises. Mr. Gilbert, collector of Inland Revenue, appeared in support of the information, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Oliver Underwood stated that on the 5th of April he went to the house of the defendant. He first asked for a pint of ale, and afterwards for six-pennyworth of gin. The gin was brought to him, and he paid for it. He was told to let no one else see the pot. Three-pennyworth of gin was afterwards supplied to him, and he paid for that also.

By Mr. Minter: I told the defendant I was very ill and wanted some gin. Defendant did not say he did not keep gin, but would go to the "Ale Shades" for some. He said nothing but brought it to me in two minutes or two minutes and a half. He did not have time to go to the "Ale Shades" for it. I did not afterwards hear him tell the excise officer that he had got it from the "Ale Shades." [On being pressed by Mr. Minter, witness afterwards admitted that he did hear this said by the defendant, and did not contradict it.] I do not expect to get anything for coming here, and should not have appeared if I had not been subpoenaed.

Mr. George Brown, supervisor of Inland Revenue at Dover: I know that defendant is not a licensed retailer of spirits. The "Ale Shades" kept by Mr. Kempt, are a quarter of a mile from defendant's house. He could not have gone there and back in two minutes and a half. I saw Underwood in the parlour at the "Princess Alexandria" on the day in question, with a glass of gin before him. In one of the cupboards in the back parlour I found a small bottle containing a little gin, and an empty bottle which had contained brandy. Crimp observed to me that he had fetched the gin from Kemp's.

Mr. George Boddy, assistant supervisor, confirmed this testimony. He asked Crimp if he sold spirits and he said "No, this is some I have fetched for this man (Underwood), who is ill."

Mr. Minter, for the defendant, contended that the prosecution had failed on both points. The evidence of Underwood was not worthy of belief. He referred to his revivification in answering the question in respect to what had passed between defendant and the excise officer as to the fetching of the spirits, and as this portion of the case rested entirely on Underwood's statement, he thought the Bench would consider it had failed. As to the spirits being found in the house, it was but a small quantity, and this he was informed was kept by the wife of the defendant for medicinal use.

He called Joseph Kemp, landlord of the "Ale Shades," Snargate Street, who said he remembered Crimp coming to his house a few Sunday's previously and purchasing half-a-pint of gin. A few days afterwards he again came for a quarter of gin.

Ellen Finnery, servant of all work to defendant, said she had taken the small bottle containing the gin which had been produced out of Mr. Crimp's bedroom, and removed it to a cupboard in the lower room, where it was found in the morning when discovered by the excise officer.

George Brown proved that he was in the defendant's company on the Sunday, when the first purchase of gin was made; and the evidence completed the defence.

The Excise Officer having replied, the Bench consulted for a short time with closed doors, and on the re-admission of the public, the Magistrates dismissed the case.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 22 October, 1864.


James Gallaghan, a private in the 13th Brigade Royal Artillery, stationed at the Castle, was charged with stealing a gold ring from the "Princess Alexandra" public-house, Commercial Quay.

George Crimp, landlord of the "Princess Alexandra," said that on the previous Friday night prisoner slept at his house. On the following morning, after prisoner had left, he went upstairs and he then missed a gold ring. He left it lying on the drawers in his (witness's) bedroom room, together with a chain and watch. He immediately went to the pawnbrokers, and informed them of his loss.

John Williams Bacon, pawnbroker, Snargate Street, said: Prisoner came to my shop on Saturday afternoon, about half-past four, and offered the ring produced to pledge. He wanted me to advance him 5s. on it. I asked him if the ring belonged to him, and he replied, "Of course it does." Crimp had informed me of having lost a ring, and i therefore engaged defendant in conversation, while my assistant fetched a policeman. Sergeant Bayly came and took prisoner into custody.

Sergeant Bayly deposed to taking the prisoner into custody. On telling him what he was charged with he said, "It's all right." At the station-house, in reply to the charge, he said he had received the ring from a girl with whom he had slept at the prosecutor's house. He also said he hoped he should not get into trouble.

Prisoner, after he had been cautioned, repeated this statement, and pleaded not guilty.

The Magistrates committed him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 12 November, 1864.


Emma Foord, a young woman who acknowledged herself as an unfortunate woman, was charged with stealing a piece of unbleached calico, value 1s. 6d., the property of George Stapley, the landlord of the "Princess Alexandra," Commercial Quay.

Sarah Stapley, wife of prosecutor, said the prisoner had been lodging at her house. On Wednesday night prisoner left her lodgings and did not return until the previous (Friday) evening, when she came into the house with a policeman. She (witness) was called upstairs to the prisoner's room, and she there was the piece of calico produced, which had been taken out of prisoner's box. The calico was her property, and had been left in prisoner's room by mistake.

George Stapley said: He kept the "Princess Alexandra," Commercial Quay. He lately kept the "Odd Fellows Arms," beach Street. The prisoner lodged with him there, and she removed with him to the "Princess Alexandra." The piece of calico produced, and a number of other things, were put into the prisoner's room after they had been removed to the "Princess Alexandra." She had no right whatever to make any use of anything that was not her own. On the previous evening she came into his house with a policeman, and said she wanted her clothes. He (witness) went up into the prisoner's room, in company with the constable and the prisoner, and on her box being opened he found a piece of calico produced. He called his wife, and she identified it as his property. He (witness) then gave her into custody for destroying the calico, as it had been cut up to make a crinoline.

Magistrates' Clerk: Then you don't charge her with stealing the calico?

Witness: No, Sir.

Police-constable Sabin: Between six and seven o'clock last evening I was on duty in Snargate Street. I met the prisoner, who was in company with a soldier. The soldier requested me to go with the prisoner to the "Princess Alexandra," as the landlord would not give up possession of her box. I proceeded with the prisoner to the house, and went upstairs with the landlord and the prisoner. Prisoner handed the key of her room to the landlord, but he could not unlock the door. Prisoner then took the key and unlocked the door immediately. On getting inside the room the landlord went to the prisoner's box and opened it. The box was not locked. He took out the piece of calico produced, and called his wife, who identified it as her property. Prisoner denied this, and said that the calico belonged to her. The landlord then gave the calico to me, and after getting outside the house he gave prisoner into my custody for stealing the calico.

By the prisoner: The calico was not concealed in any way.

Ellen Elliot, a married woman, said she lodged at the "Princess Alexandra." One day during the previous week she went into the prisoner's room and saw her sitting on the bed doing something to a piece of calico like that produced. She could not say whether the piece produced was that she had seen in prisoner's possession. Prisoner endeavoured to conceal it when she went into her room.

prisoner denied that the calico belonged to the prosecutor. It was her property. She had it sent to her from Aldershot, and she could bring a witness to prove the truth of her assertion, if the Magistrates would grant a remand.

After a short consultation the Magistrates directed the prisoner to be remanded, in order that she might bring forward her witness on the following Monday. I the meantime she was allowed to go at large.


Emma Foord, the young woman remanded from the previous Saturday, again put in her appearance.

Mr. Fox appeared for the prosecutor. He stated that a great deal had been said at the previous examination by the prisoner as to the respectability of this house, and as the prosecutor would that morning apply for a transfer of the "Princess Alexandra's" license, he attended the question the prosecutor on the representations prisoner had made when he took lodgings at his house.

The Magistrates thought this was unnecessary, as prosecutor had stated in evidence that prisoner was represented to be a married woman when she engaged a room at the house.

The charge upon which the prisoner was arrested, and the evidence taken at the previous examination having been read over.

Prisoner again denied that the sheet belonged to prosecutor and called:

Corporal Michael Salew, of the 37th Regiment, who stated that he had known the defendant nearly three years. He remembered opening a parcel at prosecutor's house. This parcel contained a number of articles, which were wrapped in the piece of calico produced.

Mr. Fox: How do you know that calico from any other piece?

Witness: Well, I have visited this young woman nearly every day since she took lodgings at prosecutor's house, and I have seen this piece of calico in her room nearly every time I have been there.

Mr. Fox: Did you represent the prisoner as your wife when you went with her to engage apartments for her?

Witness: I did not go with her, I sent another man belonging to my regiment, and he engaged the room.

Mr. Fox: Did he make any such representations?

Witness: I should think not.

Prisoner: Why are there three or four other girls living in the same house?

The Magistrates consulted for a few moments, and dismissed the case, ordering that the calico should be given to the prisoner.



This being transfer day, the prosecutor in the last case applied for the license of the "Princess Alexandra" public-house to be transferred to him, and the Magistrates, after hearing a good account from the Superintendent  of the police as to the general character of Stapley's house, granted the application.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 13 May, 1865.


George Stapley, landlord of the "Princess Alexandra," public house, Commercial Quay was charged with harbouring prostitutes, contrary to the terms of his license.

Fined 1 including costs.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 April, 1873.


On the application of Mr. Coleman, the bench gave Mr. Tomlin permission to draw at the "Princess Alexandria," Commercial Quay.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 9 May, 1873.


On the application of Mr. Coleman, the Magistrates gave permission to the landlord of the “Princess Alexandra,” Commercial Quay, to alter the present name of his house to that of “The Rodney.”


 It was no longer in evidence after 1873.



Last pub licensee had CRIMP George Partridge to Nov/1864

Last pub licensee had STAPLEY George Nov/1864-69 end

KEMP Joseph 1869-71+ (age 56 in 1871Census)

TOMLIN Mr J Apr/1873+ Next pub licensee had 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:-