Government investigations into enclosures in England on the eve of the revolution in the mid – 17th century

Background. In light of the discourse in modern historiography on absolutism in general and English absolutism in particular, this problem deserves special study for a bet-ter understanding of the functioning of the institutions of royal power in the implementa-tion of both domestic policy in general and agrarian policy in particular on the eve of the revolution of the mid-17th century. The involvement of government sources will help to identify landlords’ violations of the laws on enclosure restrictions and to determine the ef-fectiveness of the Royal Commissions’ work on the restoration of ruined farms. Materials and methods. Using the comparative-historical method of research, as well as the method of analysis and synthesis, observing the principle of historicism, various legal and narrative sources are analyzed, allowing us to trace the activities of a number of government com-missions to investigate enclosures and restore destroyed peasant farms, punish the gentry for the illegal conversion of peasants’ arable land into pastures and their eviction. Results. It has been established that the early Stuart governments set up several commissions to in-vestigate the enclosure of peasant arable land by landlords in a number of counties. Thanks to this, the central government was informed about the reduction of arable land and the number of peasants. However, the data of the commissions were incomplete both because of the local nature of their activities and because local authorities hid violators. Despite the measures taken, according to the data collected by the commissions, the use of repressive measures against the gentry enclosures, none of them was able to achieve the complete re-conversion of pastures into arable land and the restoration of destroyed peasant farms. Conclusions. The main investigations into illegal enclosures were carried out by forming and sending royal commissions to the places. Their actions could not but cause discontent among the new nobility (gentry). In the context of the emerging confrontation between the Crown and Parliament, the actions of the commissions looked like an attempt by the au-thorities on their property (lands), despite the fact that “knightly tenure” as a legal form of land tenure continued to exist. The work of the commission in 1636, headed by Archbishop Laud, and the subsequent punishments of the gentry for illegal enclosures must have caused their extreme dissatisfaction with both Laud himself, the royal government (the Privy Council), and the monarch himself. Moreover, this contributed to the growth of a negative attitude of the new nobility and bourgeoisie towards the existing archaic “knightly tenure” as an obstacle to the establishment of full private ownership of land.