This establishment really is intriguing and mystifying, actual documentation is scarce and a lot of the following information maybe conjecture.
Rock Lane is an ancient sunken pathway which leads from Perrygrove (by the Lucozade / Ribena Suntory) down the hillside to Whitecliff, where it emerges directly opposite the long defunct Whitecliff Ironworks. It is known that these workings commenced in 1798 and came into operation about 1801 or 1802. A public house to slake the thirst of those men involved in the construction of the ironworks or those workers producing iron at the furnace would be entirely expected, but the Folly Inn is documented in the straggling and sparsely populated settlement of Whitecliff as early as 1757 – forty years or so before the ironworks. Whitecliff, itself, is about a third of a mile to the south-west of Coleford on the road to Newland.
Whitecliff Ironworks were not a success and the production of iron was limited mainly due to the quality of the coke used. A second furnace came into operation in 1808, but the entire works had been abandoned by 1816. If the Folly Inn was to benefit from custom from workers from the Iron works, either in construction or production, it was only for 18 years.
Yet 75 years after the failure and abandonment of the Whitecliff Ironworks the Folly Inn is still trading. The 1891 licensing records describes it as a beer house with an annual rateable value of £11.4s.0d. George Davis is listed as the owner, and Milson Davis is the occupying landlord. The Folly Inn was free of brewery tie. Twelve years before that, in 1879, John Taylor is detailed as the owner.
In Heather Hurley’s book ‘The Pubs of the Royal Forest of Dean’ (Logaston Press 2004) she notes that the Folly ‘is now a heap of stones alongside Rock Lane’ On exploring the ancient trackway in the Spring of 2019, with white garlic flowers and bluebells transforming this secluded path into something quite magical, I discovered that there are definitely signs of a deserted building just a few yards uphill opposite the old ironworks. Two upright stones suggest the entrance of a collapsed doorway but there is only a scattering on stones amongst the encroaching vegetation. If this forgotten structure was the Folly Inn it must have been a very small and unique beer house, something akin to a hermits’ cave nestling on the side of the valley. Perhaps then it was an entirely different landscape, with no mature trees hiding it from view. The Folly Inn might even have had an open aspect facing the Whitecliff valley.
Forest of Dean Examiner, Saturday 9th August 1873 – Coleford, Tuesday: William Bevan, a potter, was brought up and charged with assaulting and beating his wife on the 2nd inst. The complainant stated that her husband was in the habit of stopping away from home with his wages. She found him on Saturday night at the Folly Inn, where he remained until turning out time. He refused to accompany her home, and subsequently beat her severely on the arms and face, and also beat the baby in her arms. He also kicked her again and knocked her down. Prisoner kicked her on the ground, and threatened to kill her. She was obliged to go to Monmouth Union to be confined, as he refused to provide for her. On this night she also lost her groceries, and her husband told her that if she put him to goal he would do for her quitely and “hook it”. Had been married for a year and a half, and had been ill-treated ever since.
Sarah Tilling said, at the request of the complainant, she saw the injuries inflicted upon her and the child, but had never seen prisoner beat his wife. This witness gave evidence to the effect that prisoner remained late away from home on Saturday nights and prevented his wife from being able to go to shop at proper hours. The complainant, in reply to the Chairman, said she desired her husband should be sent to prison and then bound over to keep the peace. Prisoner was ordered to enter into recognizance of £20 to keep the peace for six months, and to find a second surety. The Chairman added that why they had not sent him to goal was that by doing so his wife would be punished also, but if he came before them again he would be committed without question.
Saturday 13th October 1883. At the Coleford petty-sessions, on Tuesday (before Dr. Batten, chairman, Messrs I. Trotter and W.T. Dixon), the licence of the Folly Inn, Whitecroft, was transferred from John Taylor to Leonard Legg, of Coleford.
Gloucester Journal, Saturday 23rd August 1890 – Coleford Police Court, Tuesday: Before James Campbell (in the chair), Col. Davis, and Mr Isiah Trotter. – James Bayton, quarryman, George Wintle, collier, and Arthur Jones, quarryman, were summonded for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Folly Inn, Whitecliff, on 5th August. Bayton, who pleaded guilty, was fined 5s. and costs; the others 7s. 6d. and costs each. Leonard Legg, the landlord, was fined £1 and costs for permitting the drunkeness.
Gloucester Citizen, Wednesday 19th November 1890 – Coleford Police Court: Leonard Legg, landlord of the Folley (sic) beerhouse, Whitecliff, near Coleford, was convicted for selling drink to a drunken person, and permitting drunkeness upon his premises on the 13th October. Supt. Ford said this house gave the police some considerable trouble. The bench imposed a fine of £2 and costs in each case, and endorsed the license.
Saturday 17th January 1891: Transfers – The license of the Folly Inn, Whitecliff, was transferred from Leonard Legg to Milson Davies, a quarryman. ‘The chairman said the bench acceded to the applicaton, but it was not a very good start for the applicant, seeing that the license was already endorsed, and he gave him fair warning that if another case were proved, the license would not be renewed next year.
Monmouthshire Beacon, Saturday 1st September 1894 – Coleford Petty Sessions: “I have received a notice from Mr Thomas Davis, the owner of the Folly beerhouse, Whitecliff, and of the Rock Lea Hotel, and boarding house, Symonds Yat, where he now resides, of his intention to apply to your worships today for the removal or grant of the licence of the Folly beer-house at Whitecliff, to his residence at Symonds Yat, and shut up the Folly which is close to a full licensed house. As this is not an increase of the number of licensed houses, I do not object to this application.” Grantley Ford, Superintenant.
Bristol Times and Mirror, Saturday 13th October 1894 – Application for an alehouse licence at the Rocklea Hotel, Symonds Yat … Mr Davies. “the licence of a house held by him at Lydbrook to be given up.”
See below for a detailed transcription.
Auction:
Andrews and Provis have been favoured with instructions to sell by auction by public auction at the Angel Hotel, Coleford, on Friday, 20th February 1903, at 6 o’clock in the evening.
All that substantial dwelling house (formerly an inn), known as the Old Folly, containing three bedrooms, sitting room, two kitchens, brewhouse (with two boilers and new oven), and large cellar. Together with the stable, piggeries, well of water, good garden and productive orchard, the whole having an area of one acre and 33 perches. Situate on the main road at Whitecliff, near the town of Coleford, and now in the occupation of Mr Aaron James at a yearly rental of £10.
For further particulars apply to the auctioneers.
If the Folly Inn was built in an eccentric architectural style of which the name seems to suggest, it seems odd that there is so little historical account of it. Normally such a quirky establishment would be rooted in local folklore.
OF THE ROCKLEA HOTEL, SYMONDS YAT:
Gloucester Citizen, Thursday 15th August 1901 – Sale of the Rocklea Hotel, Symonds Yat: The Rocklea Hotel at Symonds Yat was disposed of by auction on Tuesday night, the purchaser of £3,000 being Messrs Bruton, Knowles & Co., Gloucester, on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The hotel is bounded on the north, east, and south by property of the Crown Manor of English Bicknor, and it is contiguous to the Forest of Dean, which is controlled by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The Crown has recently acquired the ruins of Tintern Abbey and a large section of the fishery rights of the Wye, and it is believed there is an intention to develop these possessions.
Tuesday 18th November 1902 – Government Public House: In their report the Commissioners of woods and Forests state that the Rocklea Hotel at Symonds Yat on the River Wye, and adjoining the Highmeadow Woods, being for sale it was purchased by the department for £3,000, in view of its being almost entirely surrounded by Crown land, and of the fact that it is largely frequented by visitors who are attracted to the scenery to be found in the Crown woods adjoining on each bank of the Wye. The hotel has been remaned The Royal, and has been let to a tenant on special terms, under which he has no personal interest in the sale of intoxicating liquors, these are supplied to the hotel by the People’s Refreshment House Association under an arrangement with this department.
Gloucester Journal, Saturday 28th January 1928: Coleford Golden Wedding – Mr & Mrs James Thomas. On Thursday Mr & Mrs James Thomas, of Whitecliff, Coleford, celebrated their golden wedding. Mr Thomas. who in his 70th year is the youngest son of the late William Thomas of the Scowles while his wife, Mrs Sarah Ann Thomas is the third daughter of the late Mr John Taylor of the old Folly Inn, Whitecliff.
Monmouthshire Beacon, Saturday 29th September 1894: Coleford Petty Sessions:
Tuesday. New license —This was the adjourned Brewster Session and Mr. Thomas Davies of The Rock Lea hotel, Symonds Yat, applied for a license for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry, sweets and liquors, to be consumed on the premises at his house.
Mr. Herbert Williams, solicitor, Monmouth, supported the application on behalf Mr. Davies. Mr. Williams in his opening remarks, after referring to the application made a month ago for the transfer of beerhouse license which was not entertained, said the premises and the circumstances of the case were so well known that he need not trouble the Bench any length. He submitted that a license of the kind now applied for was necessary the interests of the public. His client was owner the Folly Beerhouse at Whitecliff which was one of the old houses of the protected kind. If the present application were granted his client would undertake that this old house should be at once closed a public house, which would leave the number of licenses in the district the same as it was previously, and Mr. Davies would be carrying on a freehouse as freeholder of the premises.
Mr. Davies had carried on business as a refreshment house keeper for 20 years and not a single complaint had been made against him. All he required was a license to meet the wants of the tourists who came to the place and did not intend that it should be used an ordinary public house. The nearest licensed house was the Saracen’s Head at which there was no accommodation for visitors, it being no better than a cottage. Mr Williams then called Mr Thomas Davies, the applicant who said that in July, 1874, be established his business of a boarding and refreshment house keeper at Symonds Yat. He had since increased it year by year and in 1889 and 1892 made substantial alterations and extensions and was now able to accommodate 40 tourists in addition to having rooms for himself, his family, and servants.
In the summer season he employed six servants in addition to the assistance rendered by his wife and daughter. The ground floor of his house contained seven rooms besides pavilion capable of dining 100 people. There was also a tennis lawn. He was owner of the freehold and the place had cost him about £2,000. In the course of the summer months some thousands of tourists came there, and on bank holidays he would often feed as many as 300. On occasions he had had many as 36 people staying in his house at night some of whom would remain a week or ten days. Numbers of persons came who did not stay, and this year excursion trains had been running. He was daily asked to supply intoxicating liquors but had no license to do so. When anything was wanted he had to ask for the money and then go or send to the Saracen’s Head. This was very inconvenient as the Saracen’s Head was 200 yards away and the railway line had to crossed twice. On Bank holidays and other busy days it drew his servants from their work. People often stayed his house from Saturday to Monday. The Saracen’s Head he believed closed at 10pm and if visitors wanted any intoxicating drinks after that time they had to go without. It was the same during part of Sundays. There was very little accommodation at the Saracen’s Head which was not near the station and was moreover in another county, the county of Hereford. When the previous application was made he brought a long petition in favour of a license, signed by about 700 tourists, but that day he had left it at home owing to an oversight. It had only been exhibited for time in the house, and he did not ask anyone to sign it, but could not say about the servants. The petition was signed by people of all professions. A superior class of tourists came to his house. He had had no disturbance during the twenty years he had been in business.
By Mr. Carter: He was not the licensee of the Folly beerhouse at the present time; only the freeholder. The Ferry Inn Symonds Yat was about half mile away from his house and across the water. It was licensed for beer, ale, and wine. The nearest house to his was the Saracen’s Head, two hundred yards away. It was fully licensed and witness understood that £l,4OO odd had been given for it sometime ag; also that some structural alterations were being made inside there, but he did not know much about the house.
The next fully licensed house was the Symonds Yat Hotel, kept by Mr John Ballinger, some distance away. Grove cottage, a beerhouse kept Mr John Jones, was about three-quarters of mile off. The Yew Tree Inn beerhouse was distant about as far Grove Cottage. The Crown Hotel was more than a mile away, quite a mile and a quarter.
Witness knew Mr Kirby’s refreshment house, which was next to his and not licensed. The population of Symonds Yat was under one hundred. Only three persons stayed at witness’s house the previous night. The house was below the cliff, but not in danger from falling stones. No stone had ever been proved to have fallen down there. To get to his house people had to cross the railway from one platform, but not from the other. There was a level crossing. Witness was never a teetotaller. He believed in taking what was good for the body and in moderation. People who visited the neighbourhood were mostly tourists who came for an outing.
Re-examined by Mr Williams : The license of the Folly” at Whitchurch (sic) was not in his name. Witness had agreement with the tenant to get rid of him if necessary. The Ferry Inn was quite half a mile away. It was across the water and not fully licensed. Every licensed house except the Saracen’s Head was on the other side of the river, and all of them, including the Saracen’s Head, were in another county. The £l,4OO was given for the Saracen’s Head more than four years ago. Witness believed very little had been done there, and that the house was propped up inside. Witness did not want to supply the inhabitants of Symonds Yat, but the people who stayed his house. His house was situated near the station, right in the heart of the scenery, and in, what he should consider, the best position.
William Thomas Tummy, station master at Symonds Yat, sad he had obtained from the railway company’s books, the numbers of people who had booked to Symonds Yat from eleven stations from the 1st of June to the 1st of September last year. Those who had come day trips were 4,964, and took return tickets. During the same months the numbers who booked away away from Symonds Yat and had not return tickets was 4,391. These figures were exclusive of Bank Holidays and excursions. It would be quite fair to say that during those months 12,000 people visited Symonds Yat. That would be a moderate estimate, under rather than over, and the large majority went to Mr Davies’ house. Witness was frequently asked passengers where there were licensed premises, and if Davies had a license. Witness thought it necessary that the license should be granted. By Mr. Carter: The numbers he had already mentioned were whole tickets, not half tickets. Had no complaint against the Saracen’s Head. If people wanted spirits and water they could get it.
Mr Carter, in opening his case in opposition, made lengthy speech, in the course of which argued that the license was not required by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and it had been the rule latterly not to grant fresh licenses unless so required. The population of Symonds Yat was under one hundred persons, three-fourths whom opposed the license. The question to considered was whether the license was required by the inhabitants or not. As regarded visitors the case might not be the same next year. Besides a considerable sum of money was going to be spent upon the Saracen’s Head to put it in good repair and condition. As regarded the character of the applicant, Mr Davies had had an excellent character for many years as a temperance hotel keeper, and (Mr Carter] hoped the Bench would help him to maintain it, and not prejudice it in any way by granting him this license, and putting him under the pains and penalties the licensing laws. (Laughter) It would be highly prejudicial to other licensed houses in vicinity, and unfair the other refreshment housekeepers to grant license to this applicant. There were no fresh buildings being erected at Symonds Yat, and there was no increase in trade there. He submitted that any question to the wants people coming and going was not before the Court, and it would be a serious matter to grant new full license where the population was under one hundred. He read a petition from the inhabitants against the licence, and called Mr. Kirby, Prospect house, Symonds Yat, who said there wore not 100 people living in the place, and not more than horses. (Laughter) He kept a boarding and refreshment house, and could always send out to the Saracen’s Head for beer and spirits if required but only very few people required it. He sometimes had as many people house as Mr. Davies had at Rock Lea, and should say another full licence was not necessary.
Henry Moore Vincent, representative of Messrs Searle & Co., of the Monmouth Brewery, said his company were the owners of the Saracen’s Hoad, for which £1,400 had recently been paid. It was the Company’s intention to alter premises very considerably for the accommodation of tourists. There was sufficient accommodation for the inhabitants now. The population was under 100, and, knowing the consumption of liquors in the neighbourhood, he considered another licence undoubtedly not necessary.
By Mr. Williams – The £1,400 was given for the premises 1890. The delay in altering had been owing to the business having changed hands. The change from Mr. Searle to Mr. Lloyd took place in January, 1892. Could not say whether less than £1,400 was then given for the Saracen’s Head, as a lump sum was paid for the business and houses, and witness was not concerned in the negotiations. The order for the present repairs to the house was given he supposed, about a fortnight ago, but could not say whether since the notices of the application for this licence or otherwise, as he had nothing to do with them.
The Bench then consulted together for few moments, and the Chairman announced that they were opinion that there was evidence of a sufficient public want, and they would bo justified in granting the licence, as it would do no damage to other people or to other interests.—The licence was therefore granted.