literal, golden or mischief?

Okay as we know there are 3 primary rules of interpretation - golden, literal and mischief. Which rules of these rules supports the view "object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of parliament, but the intention of parliament must be deduced from language used"

I personally think it's the literal rule but my buddy says mischief. Thoughts?

yes mischief.
look at the case of Smith v Hughes [1960] which was about 2 prostitutes who were soliciting for customers.

Thank You Kat. But tge quote is from Capper v Balwin case and the text in my book says the following was said in the case:

However, the purposive approachthe judge likes to take, it is accepted by all that he is constrained in his purposive approach by clear linguistic limits of text.

So in Capper v Baldwin it was held "Counsel's argument comes down to this, if he is wrong and you cant exclude a machine like this...and what he maintians must have been the main intention of parliament, namely, an intention not to pernit such machine to be operated. I agree, it is odd, but intention of parliament must be deduced from language used and it may very well be tgat parliament expected the necessary limitation to be imposed by permit. But as that it may, Im quite unable to construe the words in such a way to exclude the machine"

Doesnt this quote points towards literal rule? (English isnt my first language, so Im not sure) It would honestly be a great help. Thank you so much in advance.

Im from Malaysia, a local university student. Thank you for your kind reply Kat. I understand clearly what the 3 rules do thanks to your summary above. But please be kind enough to take some of your valuable time to read the quote from the passage (including bolded part) and say whether it points towards the literal rule or not. Im sort of having great difficulty and my statutory interpretation paper is on Monday.

Ps- thank you so much for pointing out the Smith v Hughes case. I can add that to my answer. And thank you for taking time to reply.