statute to work and operate upon. But

6. A SAVING, totally repugnant to the body of the act, is void. If
therefore an act of parliament vests land in the king and his heirs,
saving the right of all persons whatsoever; or vests the land of A in
the king, saving the right of A: in either of these cases the saving
is totally repugnant to the body of the statute, and (if good) would
render the statute of no effect or operation; and therefore the saving
is void, and the land vests absolutely in the king[k].

[Footnote k: 1 Rep. 47.]

7. WHERE the common law and a statute differ, the common law gives
place to the statute; and an old statute gives place to a new one. And
this upon the general principle laid down in the last section, that
"_leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant_." But this is to be
understood, only when the latter statute is couched in negative terms,
or by it's matter necessarily implies a negative. As if a former act
says, that a juror upon such a trial shall have twenty pounds a year;
and a new statute comes and says, he shall have twenty marks: here the
latter statute, though it does not express, yet necessarily implies a
negative, and virtually repeals the former. For if twenty marks be
made qualification sufficient, the former statute which requires
twenty pounds is at an end[l]. But if both acts be merely affirmative,
and the substance such that both may stand together, here the latter
does not repeal the former, but they shall both have a concurrent
efficacy. If by a former law an offence be indictable at the quarter
sessions, and a latter law makes the same offence indictable at the
assises; here the jurisdiction of the sessions is not taken away, but
both have a concurrent jurisdiction, and the offender may be
prosecuted at either; unless the new statute subjoins express negative
words, as, that the offence shall be indictable at the assises, _and
not elsewhere_[m].

[Footnote l: Jenk. Cent. 2. 73.]

[Footnote m: 11 Rep. 63.]

8. IF a statute, that repeals another, is itself repealed afterwards,
the first statute is hereby revived, without any formal words for that
purpose. So when the statutes of 26 and 35 Hen. VIII, declaring the
king to be the supreme head of the church, were repealed by a statute
1 & 2 Ph. and Mary, and this latter statute was afterwards repealed by
an act of 1 Eliz. there needed not any express words of revival in
queen Elizabeth's statute, but these acts of king