d.
The Bill being of a pressing nature, the Council of Ministers was at
last prevailed upon to report on it to the Czar. The latter then gave
his sanction to it, but, on the recommendation of the Council, added a
rider in the preamble. This was to the effect that, though the Bill,
having been adopted by a Diet which was dissolved before the expiration
of the three years' period for which it was elected, should not have
been presented for his consideration at all, the Czar would
nevertheless make an exception from the rule and sanction it, prompted
by his regard for the welfare of the poorer part of the population.

The Senate decided to postpone promulgation of this law in view of the
constitutional doctrine involved in the preamble. It was pointed out
that this doctrine was entirely foreign to Finnish law. The preamble
which, according to custom, should have contained nothing beyond the
formal sanction to the law in question, embodied an interpretation of
constitutional law. Such an interpretation could only legally be made
in the same manner as the enactment of a constitutional law, _i.e.,_
through the concurrent decision of the Sovereign and the Diet. The
Senate, therefore, petitioned the Czar to modify the preamble in such a
way as to remove from it what could be construed as an interpretation
of constitutional law.

In reply, the Czar reprimanded the Senate for delaying promulgation,
recommended it to do so immediately, but promised later on to take the
representations made by the Senate into his consideration. Five of the
Senators then voted against, while the Governor-General and five others
voted for promulgation of, the law. The minority then tendered their
resignations. The inconveniences resulting from this new constitutional
doctrine proved, however, of so serious a practical nature that the
Czar eventually, in July, 1909, issued a declaration that "the gracious
expressions in the preamble to the Landlord and Tenant Law concerning
the invalidity of the decisions of a dissolved Diet do not constitute
an interpretation of the constitutional law and shall not in the future
be binding in law."

A third and most important encroachment by the Russian Council of
Ministers on the autonomy of Finland was also carried out at the
instigation of M. Stolypin. The Finnish Constitution makes no
distinction between matters that may have, or may not have, a bearing
on the interests of Russia. At the same time Russian inte