Wade’s Argument: Parliament Act 1911 Delegates Parliament’s Power
In his book *Constitutional Fundamentals*9 and his article ‘The basis of legal sovereignty’,10 Wade said that Parliament has three constituent elements— the sovereign, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords— and that an Act of Parliament is legislation to which each of these three elements has assented. Legislation enacted under the provisions of the Parliament Act
1911 is only enacted by the sovereign and the House of Commons. It therefore has not been agreed to by Parliament. Wade argued that, in the Parliament Act 1911, Parliament delegated law- making capacity to the sovereign and the House of Commons, and that legislation enacted by virtue of the Parliament Act 1911 is therefore delegated legislation made under delegated powers. Moreover, he argued, an Act of the Queen and the Commons is only accepted by the courts as law because it has been passed in accordance with the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. The acid test for an Act of Parliament is whether it is valid on its face. Legislation passed in accordance with the Parliament Acts is not valid on its face; it is valid only because it has been passed in a manner that was set out in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
I don't grasp the last sentence boldened. Don't the two clauses (separated by the semicolon) say the same thing?
The first clause says "Legislation passed in accordance with the Parliament Acts". The second says "passed in a manner that was set out in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.". Aren't these the same?