I  Salk.  19.  Mich.  2  Annve  B.  R.  Alhby  v.  VVhite,

5.  Several  Pcribns  were  committed  to  Newgate  by  the  Houfe  of  Commons
for  having  commenc'd  and  profecuted  an  Action  at  Law  againll  the  Con-
iVables  of  A.  for  refuling  their  Votes  in  the  Eleclion  of  Members  of  Par-
liament, which,  by  the  Warrant  of  Commitment,  was  faid  to  be  in  Coa-
tempt  of  the  jurifdiftion,  and  open  Breach  of  the  known  Privileges  of
the  Houfe  of  Commons.  Upon  a  Habeas  Corpus  brought  by  them,  it
was  held  by  three  Juftices,  That  the  Houie  of  Commons  were  the  proper
Judges  of  their  own  Privileges  ;  and  that  this  Court  was  now  eicopp'd
to  fay.  That  this  was  not  a  Breach  of  the  Privileges  o'i  the  laid  Houfe,
or  that  they  had  no  fuch  Privilege.  But  Holt  Ch.  J.  contra,  and  laid.
That  this  was  no  Breach  of  their  Privilege  ;  that  the  commencing  and
profecuting  an  Action   did  not  neceiiarily  imply  a  going  lurther  than  the

ba^e


Parliament.
bare  Filing  and  Continuing  an  Original,  which  is  no  Breach  of  Privilege  j
that  the  Suing  was  no  Breach,  nor  can  their  judgment  make  it  {by  nor
conclude  this  Court  irom  determining  die  contrary,  \\  hen  the  Houfe
oi  Commons  exceed  their  legal  Bounds  and  Authority,  tJbar  ASs  are
wrcngfid^  and  cannot  be  jultified  luore  than  the  A6ts  of  private  Men,
There  is  no  Queftion  but  their  Authority  is  from  the  Law,  and  as  it  \s
circumscribed,  io  it  may  be  exceeded  j  to  fay  they  are  Judges  of  their
own  Authority,  and  no  body  elfe,  is  to  made  their  Privileges  to  be  as
they  would  have  them.  Per  Holt  Ch.  J.  z  Salk.  ^04.  Hili  3  Anaje.
B.  R.   The  Queen  v.  P:ity  and  al.
(F)  Order  of  Parliament.
