Curious Bench Book entries

In an earlier post we discussed the case of John Hailes who, in 1571, had his allowance from the Charterhouse withdrawn when he was given the post of bellman.  A few years later two more entries in the Bench Book raise questions.  [The Bench Books are the minute books of the bench of "magistrates", the Mayor and Aldermen who made up the ruling council of the town.]  I've modernised the spelling.

"Item the 14th of September 1581 the said Mayor and Aldermen did with one full consent and assent order and agree that Christopher Harrison keelman (for and in consideration that he is both aged and blind) shall towards his sustenance have paid him forth of the revenues of the Hospital called God's house weekly so long as he liveth 12d to begin of Saturday next.  And the same to be paid by the master of the same Hospital or his assigns for the time being, the which shall be allowed him at his Audit."
It is not at all clear what this means.  There is no mention of a room for Harrison, simply an allowance of 12d a week out of hospital funds.  Was Harrison unable to live in the Charterhouse because he needed care?  It seems to be a breach of the rules.
The second extract also concerns a blind man.  It was decided on 6 July 1583 that "[blank] wife unto Ralph [blank] being a blind man and one of the brethren [of God's House], respecting her husband's infirmity that she may be at hand to help the same: She shall be placed amongst the brethren of the said Hospital in the place of Richard Jackling deceased, and that only during the said husband's life and then to depart forth of the said house and no more to have the benefit of that place: And yet if it shall please God to call any of the Sisters out of this transitory life before the death of her said husband: Then it is ordered and agreed by the consent aforesaid that she shall be then admitted amongst the Sisters in the place of that sister that shall die / and that then in the place where she is now placed there shall be a man admitted / and that from henceforth there shall not be any woman admitted into or placed in the house of the brethren, but at all times hereafter when any of that house shall die, there shall be in that place a man admitted and no more any woman."
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that Ralph (the minute-taker obviously didn't catch the surname) had a room in the hospital but was married.  We tend to assume that only the single or widowed were awarded places, since no couples were admitted.  Here, a huge concession was made in allowing Ralph's wife a men's room, in what was clearly a separate wing of the hospital, and she was to be removed to the female wing if a vacancy arose; should her husband die before her, she was out.  It was stressed that this was not to set a precedent.
These Bench Book entries are rare but valuable.
(Thanks to Helen Good for the transcriptions.)

John Hailes, bellman

From the Bench Book, 1571

[In the margin] John hailes appointed to be bell man. & the annuitie he haithe of the hospitall to Sease.
Item the day and yeare abovesaid the said maior & aldermen did give and bestowe the office of the Bell man to John Hailes he to enter to yt at michelmas next. And that from thensfourthe the xls whiche he haithe yerely of benevolence paied him by the maister of the Hospitall shall be paied him no more for that the said office is thought to be a competent Lyvinge for him. (Transcription by Helen Good.)

John Hailes is the first named inmate of the Charterhouse in the records - perhaps.  The 1571 Bench Book is the first to mention the hospital at all, and doesn't call it the Charterhouse, probably because at that stage, only 32 years after the dissolution of the priory, the term was not routinely applied to the hospital.  We can be confident, however, that it's Michael de la Pole's foundation which is referred to.  The only rival at this time, the Trinity House almshouse, was not under the control of the Mayor and Aldermen.

This short paragraph presents us with several unanswered questions.  John Hailes has an annuity from the hospital; can we be sure that he is an inmate?  There was no provision in the founding document to pay an allowance to anyone who didn't have a room in the hospital, so we must assume that he is.  And that allowance was 40 shillings a year.  Presumably he had been awarded his place because he qualified as "aged poor".  Yet here he is being given a job which carried pay of at least 40s.  Did the withdrawal of his allowance also mean that he lost his room in the hospital?
What was a bellman?  (The clerk wrote the term, twice, as two words rather than one, but that seems irrelevant.)  It was unlikely to have been simply the task of ringing a bell to mark the time at the hospital for services.  That would not have carried a salary as large as the inmates' allowances, and it probably would not have required the endorsement of the Mayor and Aldermen.  There are two possibilities in this period.  A "bellman" could be either a town crier or a night watchman.  The second seems more likely.  As with all these questions we can't be sure, but for centuries the job of patrolling the streets of a town at night was given to elderly men.  In the days before police forces the watchmen would carry a bell (and later a whistle) to alert householders to trouble.  Was this John Hailes' new job?
Despite the questions, John Hailes has the honour of being the earliest named beneficiary of Michael de la Pole's foundation.