Policing Itinerant Poor in the Northern Low Countries, 1450-1570 Making

This article investigates the rise of urban policing of itinerant poor in the Northern Low Countries in the late medieval period. Practices of prosecution show important variations between cities (selected cases are Deventer, Kampen, Haarlem and Gouda), both in chronology and compared to urban bylaws and other regulations, such as the 1531 edict issued by Holy Roman Emperor Charles v . A combination of external factors such as war, conflict, dearth, disease and the socio-political ambitions of urban authorities were at play and could lead to regionally different outcomes. In the course of this process, we see the complex making of vagrancy as a social and legal category to negotiate the reality of a highly mobile society, with a major impact on the attitudes towards itinerant poor and on the latter’s lives. Dit


Introduction
In May 1551, Gouda's urban authorities ordered the execution of Pouwels Fransz., nicknamed Meys, born in Alkmaar. Meys admitted, initially under torture, that he begged among farmers in the County of Holland 'with a healthy body […] contrary to the edict of His Royal Majesty'. 1 This was Meys' final but not his first encounter with violent urban justice. In Leiden, he had already been flogged, his nose was split, and he was banned forever from the counties of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland. Instead of leaving, however, he roamed the region and committed several thefts and robberies together with other men, including in Scheveningen and in the dunes near The Hague, where he 'violently took a man's surcoat and the schilling which he carried with him'. 2 Almost a hundred years earlier, in 1464, Wolter Johansz was decapitated in Kampen for multiple thefts. He confessed to have stolen a pair of boots, some kitchen items (including three tin spatulas), a rosary, overcoat, hat and jerkin. He did so in several hamlets and villages in Frisia, Guelders and the Oversticht: Blesdijke, Gorssel, Westerlo (no longer existing), Hardenberg, and Heerde. In Kampen he stole someone's bag and pocketed a small knife from another person. 3 The confession of Geryt Jacopbs van Pyr, born in the countryside near Kampen and sentenced to death in Deventer in 1504, contained an equally detailed list, with no less than fifty thefts (see Map 1). Geryt mostly stole clothes and textiles. He stole from his housemates but also from places where he was temporarily staying: a guesthouse, church, monastery and farm. For example, he embezzled from his landlord, a shoemaker in Vreden, a black hood, 'a pair of shoes and two white skirts'. He broke into a house near Zwolle and thieved around Utrecht and Amersfoort, taking, among other items, a woman's tabard. In addition, Geryt admitted that a man named Johan had helped him on several occasions, including to steal linen in Zeist and Bunnik. 4 Do these three men, living decades apart, have much in common? Did they lead similar lives? They all confessed to have stolen and to have roamed cities, villages and the countryside. They seem to have worked and lived in different places in the Low Countries and have struggled to generate income.
They eventually shared the same fate, as they were prosecuted by a law court of a city they did not permanently reside in. They were arrested, questioned and convicted: designated as criminals deemed too dangerous to be allowed coomans One key factor in local policies was the concern about movements of people with little or unstable income -who were deemed to also have an unstable or dubious identity and morality (see Figure 2). Indeed, of all newly delineated social categories in the later Middle Ages, that of the itinerant or foreign poor, defined broadly as not living permanently in a certain place, was most negatively perceived by elites. 8 The unemployed and underemployed, especially those who were young and in good health and came from elsewhere, risked being designated as idle and thus immoral, even if they merely lingered in cities without work. 9 They were referred to in Middle Dutch in a wide variety of terms commonly translated as vagrant or beggar, such as vagabond, landloper, ribaud, spekhaler, (wijn)boef, truggelaar, or bedelaar. In the course of the sixteenth century, being a vagrant became a punishable offence. 10 However, different regions and different types of governments in the Northern Low Countries had strikingly diverse responses to these developments. 11 This diversity is attested by, and can therefore be investigated in, three types of sources: regulations (mainly municipal bylaws and ordinances), judicial recordkeeping (ways of administering court cases, confessions and convictions; and the terms or language used in them), and trends in convictions of itinerant poor. The aim of this article is to explore these differences in the Northern Low Countries between 1450 and 1570. My main argument is that urban authorities developed their own prosecution policies and expanded their political agency by handling the problem of unwanted migration and vagrancy. This analysis has two main merits: first, it shows diversity in local policies and strikingly different chronologies of prosecution, of which the variety has remained largely unnoticed in scholarship on this early period, as further discussed below. Second, it gives insight into the construction of the social and legal category that justified prosecution -the making of vagrants, so to speak.
This study contributes to recent scholarly efforts stressing the complexity of the changing perceptions of poverty and labour in the late medieval era. Samuel Cohn argues that the (long-term) political and economic consequences of the Black Death in Western Europe were less clear-cut than coomans most scholars assumed. Mainly, there is not one course of action dictated by a certain economic logic. Rather, the interrelations between labour supply and demand, poverty, demographics, reform of poor relief and political power had a striking variety of outcomes. As Cohn, and earlier Hugo Soly and Catharina Lis, suggested, more than economic rationality or ideas on demography, political interests influenced the measures local authorities took. 12 However, there are no studies on itinerant poor in the later medieval Low Countries that investigate the factors influencing these political responses by looking at a mid-range level, that is by comparing multiple cities across counties and duchies in the Low Countries. 13 Studies generally either focus on individual cities or on providing a general overview. Furthermore, as a recent special issue on migrants and crime in the early modern era notes, empirical comparative studies on this specific topic for the Low Countries are rare, especially those that deal with periods before the seventeenth century. 14 Historians who notice an increase in the number of punishments of vagabonds often relate that change to the works of Juan Luis Vives , to the urban reform of charity during the sixteenth century, and to an edict issued in 1531 by Holy Roman Emperor Charles v. 15 This focus has led to a neglect of a more long-term approach including the fifteenth century, and the local variety in prosecuting itinerant poor. This article therefore seeks to include this early period, when the social category of vagabondage first took shape.
I compare the policing of itinerant poor in the Northern Low Countries by looking at sources from four cities: Gouda, Haarlem, Deventer and Kampen -in addition to regulations at a regional level, most notably the 1531 edict. Why these cities? First, because they have exceptionally wellpreserved records. Besides Utrecht, extant criminal court records are quite article -artikel sparse in the Northern Netherlands before 1500. Especially in Kampen and Deventer, urban authorities noted criminal activities of itinerant poor in striking detail, which was likely related to their ambition to ascertain regional political authority. A second reason is that these cities cover diverse regions, with comparable but slightly diverging profiles. Gouda and Haarlem, located in Holland, were more craft-oriented and positioned in the urbanised western coastal area. At the same time, Kampen and Deventer, in the ijssel region, focused on trade, particularly within the Hansa network. They were surrounded by rural lands, in the highly polycentric political landscape of the Oversticht and the neighbouring Duchy of Guelders. 16 What these cities have in common, however, is that they were mediumsized, ranging from 5.000 (Deventer in 1450) to about 16.000 (Haarlem in 1550) inhabitants. 17 They are therefore more representative of the policing efforts of many Netherlandish cities compared to more intensively studied metropoles such as Antwerp and Amsterdam in later periods. 18 At the same time, differences in recordkeeping and political structure of these urban governments make it difficult to draw comparisons. I do not think that we can make any extrapolations about the growing size of the itinerant poor based on the number of prosecutions. However, it is possible to distinguish different trends, such as spikes in ordinances and convictions, and to reflect on the causes of these trends.
Urban governmental policing of the itinerant poor was not merely a top-down initiative, but also reflected the concerns of members of the community and nearby farmers and villagers, who worried about public safety and constrains on provision and charity. People likely reported suspect presences near their living environments, leading to arrests and questionings.
At the same time, urban authorities did try to establish their authority more firmly by taking on new responsibilities. They found power and expression of power in the policing of itinerant poor. This was especially the case because they were in complex and continuous negotiation with regional sovereigns who also increasingly started to intervene in these issues, such as the Dukes of   coomans A stereotypical characterisation of the vagrant emerged, namely that he or she had no long-term residence, was poor, able to work but unemployed and therefore often relied immorally on alms, wandered in both city and countryside, and often behaved in a disorderly manner, even criminally. Many different kinds of people could be categorised under this stereotype. Many people in the lower socio-economic layers of society risked being labelled as such at some point in their lives, such as when they tried to move to a different city or were in between jobs. Or, for instance, when they were banished from cities for being unable to pay imposed fines for misdemeanours. 27 Yet, much of the historiography has taken over the bias inherent in the sources and implicitly accepted this highly negative perception of the itinerant poor. 28 Even historians who have investigated policies with great interest and care, such as Jason Coy, do to some extent reproduce the bias by not very empathetically referring to them as a 'flood of penniless outsiders' and 'wretched people' who 'refused to stay gone'. 29 Only a few scholars have noted that the category of vagrant was employed to prosecute what was in practice a highly heterogeneous group. 30 As Jan Lucassen and others have argued, migrant and seasonal labour forces were integral to both the urban and rural workforce and made substantial contributions to local economies. 31 Thus, for the late medieval period, the vagueness of the 'vagrant category' was a means to negotiate the reality of a highly mobile society.
The category of vagabond was thus highly flexible, and looking at the variety in prosecution policies, urban courts deliberately used that flexibility.
Policies on itinerant poor could be employed in different ways to deliver a political message emphasising community cohesion and moral unity at the expense of a deviant other. This performance of guardianship over the urban community was centred around what we may call a polyvalent use of fear. The fear of a rise in crime and immoral people could be reduced by the fear induced by aggressive and theatrical punishments. The ritual display of suffering gave the punishment a disciplining function: making others too scared to risk the same fate. This preventative function was at times explicitly article -artikel noted in the verdicts. It was central in one well-known tract, Boeventucht by Dirck Volkertsz. Coornhert (1522-1590), who argued that vagrants had no fear of dying. 32 Further, the number of women publicly convicted for vagrancy, at least before the 1570s, is strikingly low: authorities were clearly more concerned about itinerant poor men. 33 The punishments, to which I return in more detail at the end of this article, appear to confirm stereotypes about cruel and bloodthirsty medieval justice. However, this view has been conclusively revised among specialists, who have emphasized the rather careful and strategic use of violence in punishments -and in society at large. 34 It is therefore important to emphasize the exceptionality of such aggressive persecutions in the context of a Netherlandish urban legal tradition that was mainly focused on seeking financial redemption in various ways. The latter could be imbued with ritual and political gestures, such as penal pilgrimages, donations for city walls, or asking forgiveness at the town hall, but rarely involved physical violence. 35 In sum, the construction of vagrancy in texts and policies simultaneously solidified the idea that itinerant poor were problematic and threatening to communities. Policy towards vagrants was a type of epistemic violence: prosecutions made the threat appear more urgent and made the existence of vagrancy more real, just as contemporary debates on immigrants and refugees in the Netherlands collapse a highly heterogeneous group into one entity, which some political parties vilify, inciting protests and even attacks by local Dutch communities. In a somewhat similar way, late medieval urban authorities, negotiating a highly mobile society, could develop or carve out a sort of prosecution toolbox, with their own policies and decisions on who and when to prosecute, and how. 1551 -on average seven per decade. 37 All but three of these thieves were sentenced to death. In addition, a register of imprisonments, redemptions and fugitives called the Oorvedenboek noted occasional arrests for illegal begging and many misdeeds committed by people who, judging by their names, were poor immigrants. Yet, since we cannot be sure, these are not included in the overview (see Table 1). 38 Preceding the legal category of vagabond, the aldermen of Deventer and Kampen created in the fifteenth century a specific category of criminal, namely the regionally operating recidivist thief. These 94 men and three women committed a total of almost 1500 thefts, when counted per item type.
Court clerks commonly noted the type of object, owner, city or region, and often its value and specific place of theft (see Table 2). After 1500, on average less thefts per suspect were documented: precision thus decreased. Since the offenders sometimes stole several of the same things at once (such as three bedsheets, four tin plates or five cows), the total loot comprised several thousand objects. These details give valuable information about this group of people, who were often highly mobile and travelled across the Low Countries and Rhine area.
But before we turn to those data, the judicial recordkeeping in The extra-territorial reach did apparently not create conflicts with other jurisdictions -or at least, no traces can be found in the records. This suggests a shared idea that it was better for everyone if recidivist itinerant criminals were convicted. Furthermore, financially there was little to gain from prosecuting itinerant poor. The latter also generally lacked citizenship or even inhabitant status and thus could not claim the right to be tried in a specific urban court.
Comparing the number of Deventer's cases to those in Gouda and Haarlem, they peak much earlier and slightly decrease during the later decades, when cases in Holland soared (see Table 1). This suggests that once the category of vagrant was more well-established, the elaborate and precise recording of thefts was no longer strictly necessary and dwindled. Instead, the  To illustrate this, Map 1 shows the places visited by the four thieves who stole the most items (26, 45, 52 and 58 items respectively). 48 We cannot be sure of their exact itineraries, but the map reflects that each of them was highly mobile and had their own specific region and social networks in which they operated, and in which they knew people who helped to steal and sell wares. Regelkost preferred Holland, Henrik Noremeysz roamed the north-eastern Low Countries and Germany, and Geryt Pyr, mentioned in the introduction, was mostly active around the Sticht/Utrecht. They often visited the same towns multiple times, yet also in total covered a rather large area. Otto Zeemsmaker especially followed rivers. All itinerant thieves continuously crossed political and legal boundaries, and those between city and countryside.

Urban policies and ambitions
To interpret trends in prosecution, we can turn to regulations. Kampen's magistrates issued bylaws on strangers in taverns and guesthouses in 1478, 1493 and 1498, and several repetitions of bans on begging in and around churches. 49 Regulating the presence of itinerant poor became a more pressing issue in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth century in Deventer. The town's coomans and were no longer welcome. 53 This was no mere threat: in the Oorvedeboeken we find many convictions and warrants for Scots for all kinds of violent or disorderly behaviour. 54 After 1490, Deventer's aldermen many times proclaimed that unemployed non-residents (vreemden, with no further clarification who qualified as such) had to leave town, as did all foreign young men who were not enlisted under an army captain. They prohibited inhabitants to accommodate them. 55 In 1534, no one could bring any poor to the hospital without official permission by the aldermen and city council. 56 After 1500 the authorities also repeatedly banned all licit foreign beggars and lepers (those who had a letter of permission to stay for a day or two in a city to beg) at pain of being flogged, and urged inhabitants not to give refuge to Anabaptists. 57 There were also many repetitions of bans on breaking curfew, causing unrest, concealing one's face and identity, and wearing knives.
Concerns about food security and disease spread likely influenced attitudes towards non-residential poor. We find several restrictions in article -artikel of persecuting itinerant thieves in this way may have been unique to these ijssel cities, which through prosecution actively expanded their authority.
These medium-sized towns had much interest in policing the broader region to protect inhabitants and secure trade, which was deemed vital to the wellbeing of these cities within a complex political landscape. 61

Prosecuting vagrants in Gouda and Haarlem
Gouda people (see Table 1). Most verdicts contained the same formulaic sentence:  Table 1). 66 The much higher number is  Table 1). 69 Like elsewhere, thieves arrested in Haarlem were often sentenced to death or received corporal punishment. 70 Heerma Van Voss, 'Charity'. While the 1531 edict is considered influential in poor reform, historians also agree that implementation in Netherlandish cities was diverse, slow and reluctant. Few cities did fully centralise their charity collections before 1550, and even there, other forms of decentralised charity continued to exist (see Figure 5). 73 Nevertheless, in many varied ways, a combination of restrictions on begging, on the mobility of the poor, and managing funds for poor relief were widely adopted instruments. What elements local urban governments highlighted, and when they issued new measures, was adapted to their specific interests and local political constellations. In that sense, the 1531 edict gave them above all a new justification for prosecution.
Cities in the Low Countries were thus highly strategic in their use of the 1531 edict, just as they had been in adopting Burgundian princely prescriptions on begging and poor relief in the preceding decades. 74 Gouda and Haarlem are cases in point. Records from both cities explicitly referred to the 1531 edict when they convicted vagrants for begging. However, they started doing so only decades later, which can hardly be called immediate obedience. Gouda's authorities also did not issue any new poor regulations in 1531 or the following years. In fact, regulations to police itinerant poor had coomans existed for more than a century. 75 Towards the end of the fifteenth century, policies had become stricter, as was typical across the Northern Low Countries, which was also apparent in Deventer. In 1488, every traveller wanting to ask for alms required a letter or sign (teken), attributed by the Heilige Geestmeesters, who had to assess if someone could lawfully beg. These measures continued to exist across the Low Countries, and in Gouda they were adjusted in later law codes. 76 Authorities, in short, had long developed instruments to control the movements of various people with little income.
However, when we compare these rules (  article -artikel arrested in Gouda for begging, who had to work for eight days 'on the burned church here in the city as a public work' before they were banished. 105 To sum up, the magistrates used penal practices to communicate norms and political claims to the wider population and to assert authority.
Most importantly, they had a wide range of options at their disposal. 106 What penal tools urban courts used to discipline itinerant poor and how theatrical these were differed considerably per place and time. 107 There was, in short, no general logic or force that pressured them to use certain punishments once they had acquired the right to levy high justice. By contrast, in sixteenth-century Ulm, Germany, the prosecution of alien poor also increased dramatically after 1550, but the urban authorities remained much more reluctant in using corporal and capital punishments other than banishment. 108

Conclusion
This article has explored the variety in responses of urban communities in the Northern Low Countries to itinerant poor during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Town governments asserted authority and community cohesion amidst ongoing regional political and religious tensions, mitigating the fear of social destabilisation by persecuting what they presented as a vilified poor 'other'. The forceful rejection by urban authorities of the itinerant lifestyle likely reflected anxieties inhabitants harboured towards mobile poor. Between 1450 and 1550 poor policies were often adapted and expressed a concern for the functioning of poor relief in relation to the threat of poor outsiders. While it remains difficult to identify specific causes for trends in prosecution, this article has argued that a combination of external factors (war, conflict, dearth, disease, economic recession) and the socio-political motivations of urban authorities were at play, and could lead to regionally very different outcomes.
Cities were not necessarily forced to act in a certain way; they themselves took initiative. Practices of prosecuting vagrants did not only vary chronologically and per city, but also diverged from policies prescribed in urban bylaws and coomans royal decrees. This demonstrates that regulations were used variably and strategically. Finally, in the course of this process, we see the complex making of vagrancy as a social and legal category, with a major impact on the attitudes towards itinerant poor and on the latter's lives.