Evicted!

Being awarded a place in the Charterhouse was a much sought after privilege.  For a few, through the centuries, it ended in eviction.
The earliest such unlucky person in the records was Leonard Home who, in 1636, was "expelled for his evil carriage and misdemeanour”. With no more detail than that, we can only speculate about his actual offence. A little more detail appears about Frances Ellis in the Bench Book of 1714. In September she had been "expelled from God's House for being disobedient to the Master and disturbing the Brethren and Sisters". And in 1832 John Batman was dismissed for  "immoral and disorderly conduct". 
In the early nineteenth century it was still the Bench which made decisions about dismissals after requests by the Master.  In June 1831 it was reported that the conduct of John Webster had been “exceedingly irregular immoral and reprehensible”, and he was to be removed from the house and lose his pay. It seems that he was given another chance, because nine months later the Bench returned to the subject of Webster's conduct. It was still “disgraceful and discreditable”; he had not changed his ways and so was dismissed.
Not everyone went quietly.  John Gill had lived in the Charterhouse for nearly 20 years when, in 1847, he and his wife were dismissed for some unspecified "misconduct".  Gill refused to vacate the room.  The Master, Thomas Dikes, issued a warrant to the Chief Constable, dated 15 June 1847, requiring the police to remove Gill and his wife "using no more force than may be necessary".  We have no record of what happened to the Gills; but it is likely that their only recourse was the workhouse.
Henry Lee was more fortunate.  In 1859 he was threatened with dismissal for "having broken the rules of the house". The rules at the time were those drawn up by the Master, John Healey Bromby. Lee was given another chance, but died a few months later. Hannah Hammond was another who narrowly escaped. She was admitted in 1857. Eight years later, aged 78, she was threatened with dismissal for "unfeminine and disreputable conduct". She survived this and presumably mended her ways. She died 4 years later.
In 1866 Bromby complained about John Ridgway and his wife Ann. They were, he said, guilty of "gross misconduct". John was 81 at the time, so it is difficult to see what this amounted to. It is not clear what happened to them. An 1867 residents list shows them living "entirely out of the Hospital" but the register shows John dying in 1868.
So far the records do not mention alcohol, but it is safe to assume that drunkenness was a factor in some cases. In 1883 it was cited as a reason for eviction. According to the records of the council Jane Parker "had seriously misconducted herself and being of drunken habits [the Master] had thought it right to forbid her the house". (There is no record of a Jane Parker in our register, so we can assume that she was the wife of an inmate. But the only possible candidate for her husband had a wife with him called Sarah Ann.)
At the turn of the century two men were dismissed simply for "drunkenness"; Thomas Wilson in 1899 and Theophilus Routledge in 1901. A terse record in 1906 shows George Johnson dismissed for "misconduct". Three years later Mary Ann Stephenson was "deprived of room for insobriety".
As the 20th century progressed the records become more explicit, although in 1917 Christopher Hewson was simply "removed by the trustees". But some sad cases are recorded in the trustees' minutes in detail. There was, for instance, the case of Frederick Rutherford, who was born in 1826 in Staleybridge, Lancashire, and was in Hull by 1851. He was a general dealer, then a hosier and later the manager of a bookshop. He was married twice. The trustees heard none of this history in 1904, only that he was admitted to the Charterhouse in January 1894 and that his wife had left him a year ago. The Master was now complaining about his drunken habits, and gave specific examples, such as: “He was drunk on a seat in front of the Charterhouse from which he fell to the ground and could not get up without assistance”; he had been drunk and had been carried home by his friends. The final straw was when he had been “helplessly drunk in his room and calling for assistance”. His neighbours had all ignored him. When asked later why, they said that he had done it too often before and they were sick of it. The Master had heard him and forced open the door. The most worrying aspect was that Rutherford had broken a paraffin lamp and there was the danger of fire. “He does not get sufficient food,” said the Master, “and is generally in a dirty condition.” Rutherford was summoned to appear at the next meeting, where he apologised and was given a reprimand and a last chance. A year later the Master asked that he be removed from his room for “insobriety and uncleanly habits” but Rutherford died before this could be carried out.
Mary Ann Sunley, aged 73, started drinking too much and spending hours each night “screaming in the yard”. The Master, Fea, suspended her “from the benefits of the Charity” for 14 days. Two years later she was repeating the behaviour, and her son was obliged to remove her.  A number of other cases are recorded where drunkenness resulted in warnings and the stoppage of allowances but not eviction.  But there was no hesitation about William Copeland in 1919.  He was a 77-year-old former shoemaker who was arrested for indecent conduct in St. Mary's Old Burial Ground and sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. He was removed from the Charterhouse.
Later in the 20th century the references to dismissal become fewer and more guarded.  The trustees didn't want bad publicity, and residents had greater access to legal help to fight eviction.  There was also a growing supply of alternative housing for the elderly, and those who would have faced eviction in the past could now be persuaded to leave.