Diet's petition, were rejected, the Czar acting on the exclusive
recommendation of the Russian Council of Ministers. They were not even
brought before him through the constitutional channels, the Finnish
Secretary of State having been refused a hearing. As a result all
members of the Department of Justice, or half the number of the
Senators, resigned.

In the same year another but less successful attack was made on the
Finnish Constitution. In the autumn of 1908 the Finnish Diet adopted a
new Landlord and Tenant Bill, but before it was brought up for the
Czar's sanction the Diet was dissolved in the manner just described.
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