(50) On this important constitutional change, which was made in 1664, without any Act of Parliament, but by a mere verbal agreement between Archbishop Sheldon and Lord Chancellor Clarendon, see Hallam, Constitutional History, ii. 405. (51) This is true on the whole, especially at the beginning of the institution of the States General, though there were also _roturiers_ who were the immediate burgesses of the King. See Thierry, History of the Tiers Etat, i. 56 (Eng. trans.). It is in that work that the history of that branch of the States General should be studied. (52) The question of one or two Chambers in an ordinary monarchy or commonwealth is altogether different from the same question under a Federal system. In England or France the question between one or two Chambers in the Legislature is simply a question in which of the two ways the Legislature is likely to do its work best. But in a Federal constitution, like that of Switzerland or the United States, the two Chambers are absolutely necessary. The double sovereignty, that of the whole nation and that of the independent and equal States which have joined together to form it, can be rightly represented only by having two Chambers, one of them, the _Nationalrath_ or House of Representatives, directly representing the nation as such, and the other, the _Ständerath_ or Senate, representing the separate sovereignty of the Cantons. In the debates early in 1872 as to the revision of the Swiss Federal Constitution, a proposal made in the _Nationalrath_ for the abolition of the _Ständerath_ was thrown out by a large majority. (53) On the old Constitution of Sweden, see Laing’s Tour in Sweden. (54) This common mistake and its cause are fully explained by Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 237. (55) “The two Houses had contended violently in 1675, concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords; they had contended, with not less violence, in 1704, upon the jurisdiction of the Commons in matters of election; they had quarrelled rudely, in 1770, while insisting upon the exclusion of strangers. But upon general measures of public policy their differences had been rare and unimportant.” May’s Constitutional History, i. 307. The writer goes on to show why differences between the two Houses on important points have become more common in very recent times.