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 interests have
never been disregarded in Finnish legislation. It had been the
practise, when a legislative proposal was brought forward in Finland,
and a Russian interest might be affected by it, to communicate with the
Russian Minister whom the matter most closely concerned, in order that
he might make his observations. This practise was confirmed by law in
1891. In its memoranda of 1908 and 1909, on the interference of the
Russian Council of Ministers in Finnish affairs, the Senate suggested
that, in case the procedure under the ordinance of 1891 were not
satisfactory, a committee of Russian and Finnish members should be