Formerly  the  judges  formulated  the  statutes  from  the  peti-
tion of  the  commons  and  the  king's  answer.'  AU  those  passed
at  one  session  of  parliament  were  strung  together,  making  so
many  capitula  or  chapters  of  one  statute ;  to  which  was  usually
prefixed  a  memorandum  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting
of  parliament,  and  the  occasion  for  calling  it.^  On  account  of
the  generality  or  brevity  of  ancient  statutes,  a  very  liberal  and
latitudinary  construction  was  practiced  and  held  to  be  justifi-
able,^ not  admitted  of  new  or  modern  statutes.^  Hence,  there
is  a  wide  distinction  between  the  construction  of  ancient  and
modern  statutes.  This  consideration  should  detract  from  the
force  of  rules  of  interpretation  which  originated  in  reasons
peculiar  to  the  administration  of  ancient  statutes,  and  originat-

1  Dwarris,  2d  ed.  460.  <  Dwarris,  460.
2  Id.  5  2  Inst.  401 ;  Gwynne  v.  BumeU,  6
» ]\Iills  V.  Wilkins,  6  Mod.  62 ;  Att'y-    Bing.  N.  C.  561 ;  Wilson  v.  Knubley,

Gen'l  V.  Weymouth,  1  Amb.  22 ,  Rex  7  East,  128 ;  McWiUiam  v.  Adams,  1
V.  Williams,  1  W.  BL  93 ;  Morant  v.  Macq.  H.  L.  Cas.  120 ;  Montrose  Peer-
Taylor,  1  Ex.  D.  194 ;  Shrewsbury  v.  age,  id.  401.
Scott,   6  C.  B.  (N.   S.)  1;  Jeffreys  v.  6  Miller    v.    Salomons,  7    Ex.   475;

Boo3ey.4H.L.982;  Chance  v.  Adams,  Bradley  t.  Clark,  5  T.  R  201 ;  Brad-

1   Lord  Raym.  77 ;  Hadden  v.  Col-  ford  v.  Treasurer,  Peck,  425 ;  Jones

lector,  5  Wall.  110 ;  Bac.  Abr.  Court  v.  Kearns,  Mart  &  Y.  241 ;  Waller  v.
of  Parliament,  E.  Harris,  20  Wend.  555.  561.
