Sort file:- Ramsgate, March, 2021.

Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Earliest 1875-

North Pole Inn

Closed 2014

87 Hereson Road


North Pole Inn

Above photo date unknown.


At some time during the life of this pub it was called "Feeney's" for a short period. Date of this as yet unknown, but I would guess some time around 2000.


Thanet Advertiser, 18 September 1875.

This being the annual general licensing day for the Ramsgate district (comprising the parishes of St. Lawrence, Minster, Monkton, St. Nicholas, and Stoner) there was a large attendance of licensed victuallers.

Mr. Dorman applied on behalf of Mr. William Ford, the landlord of the "North Pole," for a spirits licence. He said the house was formerly occupied by the late Mr. Symonds, but Mr. Ford was a much younger man than the former tenant, and by his energy and attention to business he had succeeded in attracting a much larger and altogether different class of business to the house, and with the view of making the accommodation still more acceptable he now asked at the hands of their worships the additional privilege of being allowed to sell spirits on the premises.

It was very recently his (Mr. Dorman's) duty to argue with those walls against the indiscriminate granting of licences as an evil which had been checked by the legislature and also in all proper cases by licensing magistrates generally throughout the country, but he thought the present case was one which did not come within that category. The position of this house was on the right hand side of the Hereson Hill and it was nearly the last house in Ramsgate. There was another house licensed for the sale of spirits situated on the same side of the road, but it was up a by-way leading to the Jews synagogue, and the class of person who used that house was entirely different to those for whose benefit his client was now applying. Besides that house, there was no regularly licensed house on the Ramsgate side of the "North Pole" within 200 yards from the one for which he was now applying, and on the other side there was none nearer than Dumpton. He submitted that these facts and the isolated situation of the hours rendered the application one which ought to be favourable received by the Bench. There was a large amount of traffic on this road, and refreshments of a more generous nature than beer were required. Then there was a class of people who, although they came to the seaside still prefer to live away from the sea and Mr. Ford would tell them that he had a constant demand for bedroom accommodation which, if he were fully licensed to be able to supply, for he (Mr. Dorman) might tell their worships that if this application is granted the premises would be enlarged. If the house had been in King Street, where there were already so many licensed houses, he should not have consented to make the application, because he believed that so large a number of houses of that kind in one place was an unfavourable thing for Ramsgate; but when they found that the neighbours, who were of a highly respectable character (such as the overseers of the parish, Mrs. Hill and Holden, Mr. Tricks, and the Rev. Dr. Myers,) supported the application he thought that in the absence of any strong opposition there worships would be induced to attend to the suggestions which came from persons of that class. He understood that it was the intention of the landlord of the house which was situated up the by-way, Mr. Danton, to oppose the application but of course the Bench would understand the nature of such opposition. Mr. Danton would naturally object to another man setting up in the same business close to himself. Mr. Dorman then referred to the character of the applicant and read a testimonial from Mr. Tomkins, of the "Albion Hotel," where Mr. Ford had been waiter for six or seven years, and also one from Mr. Henry Russell, to whom he had also been an indoor servant. Of course a person like Mr. Ford would be anxious to retain his good character, and would do all in his power to conduct his house in a proper manner. He did not know that it was necessary for him to further enlarge upon the application, but would prove that the proper notices had been properly served, and having done that he submitted that this was a case where the powers entrusted to Magistrates of granting extra accommodation to houses of this character and kind, kept by respectable people, ought to be exercised.

Mr. Ford having given some formal evidence, Mr. Danton, landlord of the "Honeysuckle," said he had employed Mr. Walford to attend that day to oppose the application, but that gentleman was away in town.

The Clerk said if Mr. Danton wished to oppose the application he could do so himself.

Mr. Danton said he would rather leave it to Mr. Walford.

Mr. E. J. Hobbs said he had to present a memorial against the application, signed by the Rev. J. Gilmore.

The Clerk asked Mr. Hobbs if he was a ratepayer of St. Lawrence, or if he was clerk to Mr. Walford - if not, he could not appear.

Mr. Hobbs at first gave no reply, but upon the question being repeated 2 or 3 times he said he was not a ratepayer but he was a freeholder of St. Lawrence.

The Clerk said as he was not a rate player he could not be heard.

Mr. Hobbs, after a moment's consideration, said he was a ratepayer of St. Lawrence, and has he was executor to his brother and paid civil rights.

The Clerk:- Well, what is your objection to the application?

Mr. Hobbs said he objected to an increase of licences in the parish of St. Lawrence on the ground of the grant amount of drunkenness which already existed, and the high rates which it entailed. The memorial which he had to present was quite independent of Mr. Danton, and although it had only been got up within the last few hours, it was signed by the Rev. J. Gilmore, also by the churchwardens, and many other highly respectable gentleman who were the ratepayers residing in the vicinity of the house in question. Already a very large amount of drunkenness prevailed, and it was only the other Sabbath that he himself saw a man lying in the road drunk, not far from this very house; and a lady had positively declared that her son-in-law had been drunk for 3 weeks, so that it was a very serious thing indeed to increase the number of the houses. He had also been informed by Mr. May, the relieving officer, that there were a great many poor people living in the immediate neighbourhood of this house we were in receipt of relief.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their returning to court Mr. Dorman made an observation to the effect that he could bring forward a respectable witness, a resident in the neighbourhood, who would prove that the cases of drunkenness which had been referred to by Mr. Hobbs and not occurred at the house of the applicant.

The Chairman said the Bench had considered the matter very carefully, and I saw no reason to alter the character of the house.

The beer licence was then renewed.


I am informed by Michael Miriam that the pub has closed again in 2014 but at the time planning permission for change of use was declined.



SYMONDS Mr pre 1875

FORD William 1875+

SIMMONS John Russell 1871+

FOORD George 1881+ (age 69 in 1881Census)

FOORD Elizabeth 1890-91+ (widow age 66 in 1891Census)

SUTTON Edwin Henry 1901-03+

DORSETT Louis 1914-30+

DORSETT C Mrs 1936+

LOCKE Ernest J 1938-51+

COOTER R G 1953-55+





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