In one of the many impassioned parliamentary debates which occurred during the session of 1621 an allusion was made by Lord SPENCER to the unhappy fate of two famous ancestors of the Earl of ARUNDEL, and it was made in a way which induced the Earl to utter an unwise and unjust retort. The matter immediately under discussion was a very small one, but it had grown out of the exciting question of monopolies, and it was mixed up with the yet more exciting question of the overweening powers entrusted by the King to BUCKINGHAM. In the course of an examination at the bar of the House of Lords about the grant of a patent for licensing inns, Sir Henry YELVERTON had made a furious attack upon the Duke. The attack was still more an insult to the House, than to the King’s favourite, and it had been repeated. It was proposed, on a subsequent day, to call YELVERTON to the bar for the third time, in order to see if he would then offer the apology which before he had refused. ARUNDEL opposed the motion. ‘We have his words; we need hear no more,’ he said. Lord SPENCER rose to answer: ‘I remember that two of the Earl’s ancestors—the Earl of SURREY, and the Duke of NORFOLK, were unjustly condemned to death, without being heard.’ The implied parallel was a silly one, but its weakness and irrelevancy did not restrain ARUNDEL’S anger. ‘My Lords,’ said he, ‘I do acknowledge that my ancestors have suffered. It may be for doing the king and the country good service; and at such time, perhaps, as when the ancestors of the Lord that spake last kept sheep.’ The speaker failed to see that by using such words he had committed exactly the same offence as that for which he had, but a moment before, censured the late Attorney-General, and had moved the House to punish him. On all sides, he was advised to apologise. He resisted all entreaty. When committed to the Tower, he still refused submission. Both the King and the Prince of Wales had to intercede for him with the House before he could regain his liberty.