Discussionsof poverty insixteenth-centuryscholasticismtend tostand onthe shoulders of thecorresponding discussions in late medieval legal and political theory. To a large extent, the relevant passages from sixteenth-century works summarize and systematize views that have been formulated by late medieval thinkers such as the thirteenth-century English canonist Alanus, the Parisbased secular master Godfrey of Fontaines (active at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century), and the Tubingen-based jurist Conrad Summenhart (c. 1458–1502). 1 The late medieval tradition and those aspects of sixteenth-century moral and political thought that are based on this tradition defend the view that providing material aid to paupers in situations of extreme necessity is a duty that fulfils a strict right of the paupers. At the same time, during the sixteenth century two strands of thought became prominent that advocate highly restrictive and repressive practices, thereby casting doubt on the practical relevance of such a right. The first of these strands of thought, articulated by the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives (1492–1540), propagates the alleged need of developing investigative techniques to distinguish the legitimate poor from the indolent, the fraudulent, and the criminal. The second strand of thought, articulated by the Benedictine abbot Juan de Robles (1492–1572), propagates the alleged right of sovereigns to pass laws that prevent foreign paupers from crossing territorial borders. Both strands of thought rationalize tendencies in sixteenth-century Spanish legislation that threatened those considered to be illegitimate poor with punishment, ranging from shortterm imprisonment to exile, forced labour, and severe bodily penalties. 2 These legislative tendencies, in turn, are a response to an increasing amount of marginalization within Spanish society, 3 the insufficiency of charitable institutions such as hospitals to provide systematic poverty relief, 4 and large-scale immigration from other countries with economic problems, especially from France. 5 In this article, I examine how the arguments for restrictive and repressive practices of poverty relief were countered by the Dominican theologian and philosopher Domingo de Soto (1494– 1560), confessor to Emperor Charles V and pupil of the founding figure of the School of Salamanca, Francisco de Vitoria (1460–1546). His considerations deserve attention for three reasons. First, among the sixteenth-century Spanish moralists he seems to have been the only one to defend in detail the paupers’ right to fair usage of evidence in the context of povertyrelated investigations, as well as their right to free movement across territorial borders. Second, while the literature about other aspects of Soto’s thought is extensive, these aspects of his thought have not been treated in adequate detail by his commentators. 6 Third, Soto’s considerations address in subtle ways a problem that is inextricably connected with duties of poverty relief