"From the citizens of the first-class, kind, prosperous and intelligent people": mechanisms for the nomination and approval of elected Moscow magistrates in 1720 and 1740.

Gushchina Dina Vadimovna ORCID: 0000-0003-3512-5658 Postgraduate student, Department of History of Russia before the Beginning of the XIX century, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prosp., 27 k. 4, kab. E-449 totedo@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

Within the framework of the history of the Russian city, the study of urban governance allows us to understand the specifics of the development of urban communities in Russia, the specifics of their interaction with the state authorities, the scope and scope of powers of city government bodies. Addressing this issue within the framework of new social history, historical anthropology, local history and the theory of social networks allows us to see the specifics of Russian urban governance in a new perspective.

At the end of the XVII – first quarter of the XVIII century. a number of changes took place in the structure of city administration. According to the reform of 1699-1700, zemstvo huts were created in the cities, consisting of burmasters chosen from among the city dragoons. They were subordinate to the Burmister Chamber or Town Hall established in Moscow. Thus, the Posadsky population for the first time received its own estate court and a strictly centralized management system. However, with the creation of provinces, this system was destroyed, and the Posadsky people were again placed under the control of the local administration. With the organization of city magistrates and town halls in the early 1720s, there was (depending on the number of courtyards) a return to the principles of centralized management and estate court for the village population. Under Peter II, magistrates were abolished and replaced by town halls. It was only in 1743 that the magistrate system was restored by Empress Elizabeth Petrovna practically in the form that it had under Peter I, after which it existed almost unchanged until the City Regulations of 1785. Thus, two episodes of major elections – during the initial creation of magistrates in the 1720s and their restoration in the 1740s - allow us to make a comparative analysis of the Moscow constituencies that were elected on the same legislative grounds with a difference of two decades, and to identify the degree of continuity between them.

In pre-revolutionary historiography, several fundamental works were devoted to the topic of the formation of city magistrates, in particular, the studies of I. I. Dityatin and A. A. Kizevetter ^{[10, 11]}. However, the subject of the authors' interest was rather the motivations of state power. In Soviet historiography, this problem was touched upon in a number of articles ^[19-21] devoted to the composition of Siberian magistrates. In addition, an article by A.V. Muravyev ^[18] on the formation of the Moscow Magistrate should be separately noted. The author turned to the documents that will be considered in this paper ^[1], and came to a number of valuable conclusions. However, he used only the part of the case in which the election procedure is described, leaving out of the field of attention the personal composition of the electors, as well as the twists and turns that followed after the approval of the candidates. It is noteworthy that these works give different estimates of how much the merchants were interested in direct participation in the activities of city magistrates. Currently, the study of city government bodies of the XVIII century and the process of their formation has become the subject of a number of studies ^{[9, 14, 15, 16, 22]}. However, the personnel of the city administration bodies, and, in particular, the Moscow Magistrate, has not yet become the object of special research.

In this paper, based on the use of modern methodological tools, a different perspective of the development of this topic is proposed. Its purpose is to identify the composition of the Moscow City Magistrate and analyze the mechanisms for the nomination and approval of Posadsky residents in magistracy positions.

The object of the study is the composition of the Moscow City Magistrate in 1720 and 1740. The subject of the study is the mechanisms for the nomination and approval of Moscow elected magistrates, as well as the motives and strategies of urban tyagletov in the process of choosing magistrate servants.

The choice of the Moscow Posad as an object of research, in addition to the significance of its place among the urban settlements of Russia, is due to the fact that both episodes of the formation of the composition of magistrate officers in Moscow are provided with sources that fairly fully and in detail reflect the election procedure, which for Russian cities of the first half of the XVIII century. is a rarity. The same considerations determined the choice of the chronological framework of the work. It is also worth noting that the indicated angle of the study in relation to the Moscow Magistrate, unlike the cities of Siberia and the Urals, has not yet been subjected to close consideration.

The work is based on the use of methods of "new" social history. The documents of the Chief Magistrate reflected the lists of Moscow electors, for each of whom, with the help of audit documents, a dossier was compiled. These dossiers were combined into a database, which made it possible to compare the composition of elected Moscow magistrates during two major election episodes, as well as to identify factors such as age, marital status, etc. The analysis of the composition of the electors, the specifics of the magistrate's service, the election procedure and the subsequent episodes of evasion from service allows us to draw some conclusions about the motives and strategies resorted to by the townspeople.

The necessary materials for such an analysis can be provided by the clerical documents of the Chief Magistrate, in which the procedure, lists of electors and election results in different cities are recorded. For Moscow, the cases of two major episodes of elections to the Moscow Magistrate have been preserved: in 1722-1723 and 1744. In addition to these two cases, this article will use the materials of the 1st and 2nd revisions published in 1883 by N. A. Naidenov ^{[6, 7]}.

The events of the elections to the Moscow Magistrate in 1722-1723 were reflected in the documents of the case "On the judges elected to the Moscow Magistrate" ^[1], which covers the period from January 20 to August 27, 1723. It is small in volume, it includes denunciations, decrees, reports, sentences, the oath form. They reflected not only the voting procedure, but also further difficulties associated with the failure of a number of employees to take the oath.

A much more voluminous case "On the choice from the Moscow merchants to the Moscow Magistrate" ^[3] dates back to 1744. It also includes documents of various types. Of particular interest are the list of candidates selected for magistracy positions, as well as the denunciations of the townspeople to the Chief Magistrate about violations committed by one of the groups of electors. The reports and decrees reflected the search for merchants already selected as servants.

The main legislative act regulating the activities of city magistrates in the 1720s was the Regulation of the Chief Magistrate of 1721 ^{[8, No. 3708]}. Already in the preamble of the Regulations it is postulated: the magistrate is arranged to "collect the scattered temple of the entire Russian merchant class". Researchers, however, note that the main motive for the creation of magistrates was the fiscal interest of the central government, and the organization of elections itself was more likely to meet the interests of only the wealthiest merchants, and not the entire posad as a whole ^{[10, p. 115]}. At the same time, the oligarchic principle was already present in the daily life of Russian cities. The reason for this was mutual responsibility when collecting payments, since the more-paying members of the communities paid significantly larger amounts during the collection than their less-paying neighbors. At the same time, the city magistrates had significant judicial powers in relation to the townspeople, and solved a wide range of cases of both administrative and criminal nature ^{[8, No. 4624]}.

In addition, in the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate, city magistrates are charged with the duty to "collect income and give it according to decrees", report on the money collected, monitor the completeness of the settlement, returning fugitives and registering new members of the community. At the same time, the city magistrate could only initiate the salary adjustment independently ^{[8, No. 4624]}. Thus, the servants of the magistrates bore serious financial responsibility, burdened with various fines for possible offenses, and at the same time the independence of the magistrate was very limited.

Taking into account all of the above, the fact that candidates for magistrates were elected by the townspeople, and not by the central government, no longer seems a paradox: by involving electors in the process of recruiting provincial, provincial and city magistrates, the state authorities sought to provide not so much autonomy and freedom in decision-making to the townspeople societies, but additional "insurance" to myself. This is also the reason for the instruction of the Regulations to make a choice by calling "the first worldly people" ^{[8, No. 3708]}, that is, the wealthy top of the posad. Electors, sealing public sentences with their own signatures, became financially responsible to the state authorities for the actions of their elected magistrates ^{[12, p. 119]}.

The Regulations did not specify the term of service of the magistrates' members, thus, the magistrate's service was interpreted as indefinite ^{[10, p. 212]}. Consequently, this service took the first-class merchant away from business activity for an indefinite, and obviously very long time. Performing a wide range of duties required the daily presence of ministers in the field. At the will of the Posadsky community and the Chief Magistrate, the lifestyle of the chosen magistrate's employees changed significantly: before that he was a merchant, now he became an employee, sometimes completely unwilling.

Members of magistrates were exempted from all other services ^{[11, p. 670]} and excluded from the lay layout of the poll tax, as evidenced, for example, by the records of the Salary Book of 1748 ^{[7, p. 8]}. The issue of salaries for magistrate employees is ignored by the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate, however, sometimes the village community "provided assistance" to magistrate servants ^{[11, p. 669]}.

Some members of the city administration, however, found other ways to make the service more profitable: bribes, forgery in worldly sentences, extortion, uneven distribution of taxes for selfish purposes ^{[11, pp. 718-719]}. In the Moscow City Hall in 1740, an extraordinary event occurred: Mayor Efrem Bokov stole a colossal amount from the money yard — 8,100 rubles. However, he never had a chance to use this money – without waiting for the investigation, the mayor died. In compensation for the damage, the Moscow City Hall put up for sale a stone shop, which Bokova's widow had already taken possession of ^[4].

So, the magistrate's service assumed a wide range of burdensome duties, aggravated by financial responsibility for the electors themselves. At the same time, their actions and decisions could have an impact both on the lives of individual Posadsky residents and on the entire Posadsky society as a whole.

The Moscow magistrate, according to the Regulations, was to consist of the president, 3 burgomasters and 6 ratmans. The elections were initiated by the Chief Magistrate, while it was ordered to choose "from the guests and from the living room and from the living rooms of children and from the citizens of the first-class, kind, prosperous and intelligent people" (Chapter VI) ^{[8, No. 3708]}.

The further election procedure in the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate is defined in the most general terms: Chapter VI states that those "who will have more votes" should be chosen ^{[8, No. 3708]}. However, the final word in approving the composition of the city magistrates remained with the Chief Magistrate, who could reject the choice and demand to select additional candidates, and in some cases could even appoint candidates at his discretion.

These were the general provisions of the electoral procedure described in the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate. There were, however, some additional details of the electoral procedure. For example, the sentences were written exclusively at the town meeting, a different order was the reason for the cassation of the elections ^{[11, pp. 694-697]}. At the same time, a group of electors could agree on a single decision in advance, but they should have issued their verdict at the meeting, in the walls of the zemstvo hut. The Chief magistrate did not insist on a single solution for the entire gathering, and when receiving several options from different groups of the townspeople, he simply approved those who, in his opinion, were most suitable for a particular position.

In practice, in some townships (including in Moscow), triple-digit elections were also used ^{[11, p. 686]}: three candidates for each vacant magistrate position were elected at a lay meeting, and only then the final runoff took place. Thus, in such a procedure, 3 candidates for the post of president, 9 candidates for 3 vacant positions of burgomasters and 18 candidates for 6 positions of ratmans should have been elected to the Moscow magistrate ^[3]. Such a procedure streamlined the process and to some extent leveled the struggle of individual inner-city groups: even if one of the parties managed to "hold" its candidate, he still inevitably had at least two competitors.

So, having considered the peculiarities of the electoral procedure, let us turn to the real practice of the first elections to the Moscow Magistrate in 1722-1723. On August 27, 1722, the Moscow City Hall and its burmasters received a decree on the election to the city magistrate ^{[1, l. 15]}. However, the Moscow posadsky people delayed the start of the elections under the pretext that a number of Moscow merchants, sent by decree to St. Petersburg, "live and trades and crafts, factories and shops have in Moscow, as well as from certain factories of the company of St. Petersburg residents who live in Moscow, to that choice is very they are found worthy, and they do not dare to choose from them without a decree" ^{[1, l. 16-16 vol.]}.

Obviously, the village societies were burdened by the fact that the well-to-do members of the community transferred to the Petersburg Posad were turned off from the general village services, who at the same time actually continued to live and conduct business in Moscow, as well as tax collectors and company workers, who also, sometimes, created factories only to take advantage of the benefits that the state provided to company workers ^{[12, p. 332]}. The Posadsky people used the elections to the Moscow Magistrate as an excuse to draw the attention of the central government to this.

As a result of the elections held on January 20, 1723, the following were nominated for the post of Moscow magistrate: I. Strezhnev, B. Karamyshev, A. Mikhailov, V. Gorsky (4 candidates); Potap Klyuev, Ivan Tarkhov, Ivan Korotky, Ivan Samsonov, Andrey Evstratov, Andrey Kosov, Grigory Sorokin for the 3 seats of burgomasters (7 candidates). At the same time, among the 10 candidates for 6 ratmanov seats, we again meet the names of Evstratov, Tarkhov, Samsonov, Sorokin, besides them Grigory Shcherbakov, Grigory Trofimov, Andrei Stepanov, Grigory Babkin, Anton Efimov, Semyon Shchuchenkov, Dmitry Sobeschikov, Ivan Menshoy, Fyodor Vasiliev, Osip Evreinov were nominated ^{[1, l. 19-19 A.V. Muravyov, analyzing the number of votes cast for each individual candidate, comes to the conclusion that there was a struggle between individual groupings of electors [18, p. 68]}. At the same time, the decisive factors for the Chief Magistrate were the candidates' belonging to the village elite and work experience in elected village institutions, and not the number of votes cast for them.

The people chosen in 1723 to serve the Moscow Magistrate are quite mature: from 36 to 59 years old. For the most part, these are the original inhabitants of one or another settlement. Among the electors are four of those who signed up for Moscow settlements from other settlements or from other social groups.

The electors of 1723 included people who fully meet the requirements of the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate on the prosperity of candidates. This, in particular, can be judged by the presence of many of them yard people (V. Gorsky, P. Klyuev, I. Tarkhov, I. Samsonov, G. Shcherbakov, G. Babkin, A. Efimov, S. Shchuchenkov). At other electors (V. Gorsky, S. Shuchenkov), several families rented housing in the courtyards ^{[6, pp. 36, 64, 67]}. Ivan Korotky, who was elected to the post of mayor, owned a factory together with his brother Matthew. There were as many as 10 families living on it and in the courtyard of the elector ^{[6, pp. 114, 117]}.

The list of elected officials of the Moscow Magistrate includes representatives of well-known merchant families who played an important role in the business life of Moscow. So, among those elected to the presidency, Ivan Stepanov son Strezhnev is named – a prominent figure in the commercial world of Moscow, known in government circles: in 1712 he was involved in the work of the "Collegium for Commercial Affairs", and during the first quarter of the XVIII century he repeatedly participated in the work on draft trade agreements ^{[12, pp. 46, 123]}. However, although the electors asked to appoint Strezhnev as the president of the Moscow Magistrate ^[1], he had already been elected to the ratsgers of the Chief Magistrate. A representative of the posadsky elite, Antip Mikhailov, was also nominated for president ^{[6, p. 179]}, who previously held the position of burmister of the Moscow City Hall. As a result, the Chief Magistrate appointed him the first mayor of the Moscow Magistrate, without appointing the president. Another candidate for the presidency of the Moscow Magistrate, Vasily Gorsky ^{[6, p. 64]}, was also not approved because he had already been appointed to the post of Ratsger of the Chief Magistrate.

 A large merchant Ivan Korotkoi, who was elected to the post of mayor, was involved in the work of the "Collegium for Trade", and continued to participate in similar structures after the elections of 1723 ^{[12, p. 168]}. His candidacy, however, was rejected, obviously due to the fact that he was listed as a St. Petersburg resident. It can be assumed that the choice of these candidates, who fully meet the requirements of the Regulations of the Chief Magistrate, but clearly not suitable for the position for other reasons (appointment to the Chief Magistrate, factories in possession, formal enrollment in St. Petersburg residents), was a way to draw attention to certain groups of first-class merchants who were exempt from services. Among the elected burgomasters are also I. Samsonov and A. Evstratov, who already performed these duties in 1721-1722. These two candidates were approved by the Chief Magistrate.

A noticeable preponderance in the number of electors fell on Bolshaya Sadovaya Sloboda – its tyagletsy gave 20% of electors, while some settlements are not represented in this list at all.

It would seem that after the final approval of the electors, the struggle around the creation of the magistrate was left behind. However, already in April 1723, the Chief Magistrate received a complaint from the Moscow Magistrate that three ratmans approved in office – Semyon Shchuchenkov, Grigory Babkin and Ivan Tarkhov – had not started their duties ^{[1, l. 1]}. For more than a month, the magistrate sent soldiers' teams for negligent ratmans, I arrested their yard people and threatened them with a fine – and only after that the ratmans finally took office. And if Tarkhov, according to the report of the soldiers' team, was ill, then Shchuchenkov and Babkin, apparently, deliberately avoided service, and took up it only under significant pressure. In June of the same year, the Moscow magistrate again reported that the same three Ratmans did not go to the magistrate "for many days" ^{[2, l. 1]}. This time, however, the Ratmans came to the office themselves, without the soldiers sending for them.

The Moscow Magistrate existed for less than a decade: on August 18, 1727, a nominal decree was issued "On the destruction of the Chief Magistrate in St. Petersburg" ^{[8, No. 5142]}. Magistrates were replaced by town halls, but in 1743 they were restored again "on the same basis" ^{[8, No. 8734]}. This reform looks organically in line with the general trend of the first years of the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna to return to the institutions of Peter I.

On March 14, 1744, a decree on elections came to Moscow ^{[3, l. 1 – 1 vol.]}, voting was held at two gatherings on April 5 and 7 ^{[3, l. 2 – 3]}. The election was carried out by a triple number, but the electors did not make a final decision and submitted all 39 candidates they had elected to the Chief Magistrate without a final run.

It is also interesting that in addition to the two sentences drawn up at the general meetings, another verdict from April 7 was also submitted to the Chief Magistrate ^{[3, l. 13-13 vol.]}, to which only 8 people had a hand. In this sentence, "in addition to those previously chosen," three more candidates were proposed for the posts of burgomasters: Kozma Andronov, Pankrat Pavlov, Pyotr Kolbukov. In response, Moscow merchants filed a report to the Chief Magistrate that this verdict violated at least two election rules: it was not drawn up at a general meeting, and a meager number of votes were cast for the candidates. The denunciation also indicates that Andronov and Pavlov had already served in 1742 in the Moscow City Hall, and were in business even beyond the prescribed period. It is also noteworthy that one of the three candidates (Pyotr Koblukov) proposed in this verdict was nominated as a candidate by another, much more numerous party of merchants, and among the 8 electors was one of the candidates proposed by the opposite party for ratmans (Vasily Shubnikov). However, despite gross violations, the Chief Magistrate nevertheless approved one of the candidates proposed by this verdict – Kozma Andronov – as mayor. The central institution motivated its choice by the fact that "although he was chosen not with the consent of the merchants, but by a small number and that he was already a burgomaster in 1742 even beyond the deadline, but <...> although he was chosen by few merchants, but for that the best and first–rate"

^{[3, l. 20-20 aboutIt is very significant that of the three candidates chosen by a separate group of merchants, the Chief Magistrate chose not the one that was proposed by a larger party. At the same time, it is quite possible that the service of Andronov and Pavlov indicated in the denunciation of the Moscow merchants was rather an argument in favor of their candidacies, since it testified to their experience in conducting city administration affairs. The final decision of the Chief Magistrate was as follows: of the ratman positions, only three were replaced by candidates nominated at the elections (Ivan Zavyazoshnikov, Andrey Ustinov, Ivan Karpov, initially proposed by the merchants to be mayor), the remaining four ratmans were appointed by direct instruction from the Chief Magistrate (Ivan Kochenev, Ivan Mitrofanov, Avram Chernikov, Timofey Safyaninkov). The Chief Magistrate appointed Dmitry Plavilshchikov and Ignatiy Fedotov, who were elected at the general meeting by the largest group of merchants, as well as Kozma Andronov, who was nominated by only 8 electors. Afanasy Grebenshchikov, chosen by the merchants, was approved for the post of president. The reason why the Chief Magistrate neglected many of the candidates presented to his court and preferred to independently elect merchants (including from among the electors themselves) to the positions of ratmans is that many of the submitted candidates "turned out to be either senile, or incapable, or not of the first-rate, or not found, in absences."" [3, L. 20]}.

The list of those elected to the Moscow Magistrate for 1744 is almost twice as wide as the list of 1723 and carries a number of notable differences. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that there is practically no family continuity between the electors of 1723 and 1744. Given such a discrepancy in the list of surnames, one can even assume the deliberate choice of those who had no relation to him before to the positions of the Moscow magistrate. Although, of course, over the past 20 years, the composition of the top of the Moscow merchants could seriously change.

Some changes are also interesting in the strategy according to which the Chief Magistrate appointed members of the Moscow Magistrate. So, in 1723, the central body of the city administration considered merchants aged 59 years (Antip Mikhailov) and 54 years (Ivan Samsonov) quite suitable for service, at the same time, the elected ones proposed by the Moscow Posad in 1744 caused the displeasure of the Chief Magistrate that "they turned out to be decrepit after consideration" ^{[3, l. 20]}, although the age of the oldest among them was 61 years old (Alexey Medvetkov) ^{[7, p. 8]}. And, on the contrary, if the youngest candidate in the list of 1723 was a 36-year-old candidate (Grigory Babkin) ^{[6, p. 64]}, then the list of 1744 for magistrate officers offers candidates at the age of 28 (ratmans Zakhar Shubin ^{[7, p. 14]} and Yakov Kozmin ^{[7, p. 61]}) and 24 years old (Mayor Pyotr Kolbukov) ^{[7, p. 2]}; and even 25-year-old Pyotr Filatiev is listed among the three candidates for the post of president of the Moscow Magistrate ^{[7, p. 1]}. At the same time, the Chief Magistrate is clearly inclined, within reasonable limits, to choose younger candidates. So, he rejected the candidate for the post of ratman Vasily Petrov Chernikov's son, who was 51 at the time of the election, but appointed his son Avram 30 years old to this position, although the latter was not even listed in the list of electors and was appointed "at the discretion" of the Chief Magistrate ^{[3, l. 20 vol.]}. Perhaps, the central institution sought to elect ministers for many years to come. Indeed, referring to the private legal acts of Moscow merchants, we find that Dmitry Plavilshchikov ^{[5, p. 165]}, Kozma Andronov ^{[5, p. 158]} and Ivan Lichonin ^{[5, p. 407]} still hold their magistracy positions at the end of the decade.

 And one more observation: in the list of electors for 1744, there were more arrivals from other settlements and townships: they made up 17 % of all electors against 14 % in 1723 .

As two decades ago, the Moscow electors of 1744 elected companionists to some magistrate posts, regardless of their exemption from services. Thus, the list of electors included: Peter Filatiev ^{[7, p. 1]}, Vasily Shubnikov ^{[7, p. 7]}, Vasily Silin ^{[7, p. 10]}, Zakhar Shubin, Fedor Bogdanov ^{[7, p. 14]}, Volodimer Mikhailov ^{[7, p. 15]}. In comparison with 1723, the obvious heterogeneity of the list of electors of 1744 is also interesting. For example, in the list of candidates there are both first-rate merchants paying a salary of 60 rubles (Peter Strugovshchikov) ^{[7, p. 16]} and merchants of the 2nd guild with a salary of 2 rubles 80 kopecks (Nikita Vasiliev) ^{[7, p. 57]}. As in 1723, among the electors of 1744, one can find representatives of famous merchant surnames, such as: Peter Strugovshchikov, Peter Filatiev, Semyon Chiryev, Avram Evreinov. Filatiev and Chiryev, in addition, were candidates for vice-president of the Chief Magistrate ^{[12, p. 138]}. Avram Evreinov in 1730 participated in the work of the Commission on the coin business ^{[12, p. 107]}, and in 1727 he, among other merchants, was involved in the consideration of the draft Bill of Exchange Charter ^{[12, p. 181]}. However, none of these prominent merchants were chosen as servants of the Moscow Magistrate. A much larger group of candidates for magistracy positions were not so noticeable in the Moscow trading environment, posadsky people, merchants of the first article with a salary, although solid, but still more modest than their eminent competitors (from 12 to 18 rubles). Interestingly, the choice of the Chief Magistrate in almost all cases fell on merchants from this group, which generally corresponded to the main principle of the formation of city magistrates from economically and financially secure persons. In addition, the list of candidates next to the wealthy merchants of Moscow included merchants of the 2nd guild Nikita Vasiliev, Pyotr Stepanov son Strezhnev and Semyon Yakovlev son Turcheninov. None of these electors was approved by the Chief Magistrate even in the position of ratmans. Moreover, it is likely that the presence of merchants of the 2nd guild was one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction of the Chief Magistrate, and, as a result, the appointment of some servants at their own discretion.

With such heterogeneity among the electors, attention is drawn to the fact that the villages and hundreds in this list of electors, compared with 1723, were represented much more evenly. So, in the verdict of 1744, there was one candidate from the Alekseevskaya, Basmannaya, Kazennaya, Konyushennaya Sheepskin, Petty–Bourgeois and Boorish settlements, as well as from the Dmitrov hundred and from the Big Luzhniki; 2 candidates from the Barashskaya and Kadashevskaya settlements; 3 from the Crimean Luzhniki and Maiden Luzhniki, as well as from the Rawhide settlement. 4 candidates were from Koshelnaya Sloboda. 9 of the elected belonged to the Living Room Hundred.

So, the lists of electors for 1723 and 1744 differ markedly from each other, although some trends, for example, attempts to force the company to the village services, remain unchanged. However, the choice made by the servants of the Chief Magistrate was also not perfect. On May 8, merchant Ivan Mitrofanov, who was elected by them to the ratmans of the 1st guild, did not appear for the oath. Once again, a long conflict between the Chief and Moscow Magistrates with the appointed minister unfolded. Twice a soldier was sent for Mitrofanov, who invariably returned with the message that Ratman was ill ^{[3, l. 38]}. On June 25, a doctor was sent to him, who concluded that "due to the burden of his body, he, Mitrofanov, has weakness in his legs, from which he can hardly stand and walk. And there are no other diseases in it <...>" ^{[3, l. 39]}. Soon, however, it turned out that Ivan Mitrofanov was not fit to be a magistrate for other reasons: for a debt on salary money, he was deprived of his merchant rank.

 Consideration of two episodes of the elections to the Moscow Magistrate showed how in the process of its formation the interests of the central institution, the motives of certain groups of the Posadsky population, as well as the desires and aspirations of individual posadsky residents collided. This clash created a tangled and tense knot of conflicts and alliances.

In implementing their projects, the state authorities imposed numerous duties on the residents of the village, practically without balancing their rights. City magistrates were no exception to this trend. Nevertheless, the servants of the city magistrates of the first half of the XVIII century had a certain amount of authority in relation to the village population, so the townspeople were not indifferent in whose hands these powers would be. Only the top of the posad, the merchants of the 1st guild, could make decisions on this issue, although not final.

Along with the general interests of the village, there were aspirations and calculations of individual parties within the posad. As the example of the elections to the Moscow Magistrate in 1744 shows, the Chief Magistrate did not hinder the struggle that was flaring up inside the posad, making final decisions in accordance with considerations of state benefit, however, he did not explicitly condone any of the inner-village groups.

In addition to all these closely intertwined and sometimes fiercely opposing forces, there were the interests of individual posadsky residents – merchants chosen to serve as magistrates, which meant for them a significant and very long-term change in life: separation from bargaining, daily performance of a large volume of judicial and administrative duties, not supported by salary, the constant threat of serious financial responsibility. For some of the elected officials, this service was so undesirable that they avoided it by all means, claiming to be ill or simply not being in the presence of the magistrate.

Rare moments of coincidence of state interests with the needs of the posad did not atone, however, for the deep split between them. This split became the reason that it was very difficult for specific posadsky people and the urban tax community as a whole to exercise their interests.