The author of the article carried out the systematic analysis of the journals of this institution the highest authority for certain chronological periods (1737 and December 1740 ‒ November 1741) in order to establish quantitative data on the following attributes: thematic categories of Senate case files, state bodies-sources of the Senate agenda and state bodies-addressees of its outgoing documents. The values for these parameters allow us to clarify the true role of this higher institution in the governance of the empire. As a result of the study, the conclusions were reached that the structure of the Senate’s functioning during the indicated intervals was similar to the system of its activities, which was characteristic of one of the last years of Peter the Great’s reign (1723), and in some important respects at the period of the regency of Anna Leopoldovna, the “Governing” body even surpassed the indicators of that time.

The article analyzes the problem of the composition of the imperial Cabinet of Ministers from the point of view of the issue of the personal activities of its members. This aspect of the topic has not received significant coverage in historiography. The chronological framework of the study covers the period from 1734 to 1741, when the main development cycles of this institution were carried out. The material of the research is the clerical documentation of a state body, which made it possible to reveal the following facts of the independent work of ministers: their special orders and opinions, reports to the empress and announcements of the highest orders, as well as the signing of imperial decrees. The author made conclusions about the nature of the personal influence on the activity characteristics and forms of functioning of the institution of higher authority.

The author examines the development of Senate’s structural elements in 1730–1741 (“presence”, the Office, the most important positions, the Moscow division), when the new management reality has come. Actuality is determined that the recent literature are neglecting to specified issues. This problem has been studied in a positivist works of pre-revolutionary researchers specifically. On the basis of legislation and record keeping documentations the historian shows that in this period the Senate’s organizational structure has experienced many transformations, caused by temporary factors of the current administrative needs and the court disposition, but the main elements of the previous Senate organization were preserved.