But the house of commons almost lost its power and legitimacy as an MP tried to remove the ceremonial Mace.
(which apparently gives this government body its authority) 
Most all British descended legislatures have a mace that signifies the literal earthly authority. Canada, Australia, Ireland, etc. and even an escapee like the United States (and thus the Philippines) has a version of it. (For the House, the power of the Senate is from the States.)
Picking up the mace has been a relatively common protest in the UK House of Commons. Funny enough the mace has actually been a symbolic thing far far longer than it was a literal thing the King or Speaker or whoever used. IIRC, the oldest use of the mace was post-Magna Carta, but less than a century or so later it was already purely symbolic. I believe that's when it started growing in size and becoming silly looking, the U.S. House's is even crazier and stands in a block of marble rather than lying on a table.
France at one time also used a mace, but since its state has not been historically continued, it was dropped at some point. As most of the mainland legislatures take after French and German customs rather than British and many of the oldest are just entering their second century, such old timey traditions are limited. The States-General, for example, was reconstructed entirely post both the American and French Revolutions, not to mention the refounding of the Kingdom. The British Parliament's traditions predate that by five hundred years or so. Which is one reason it and its spin-offs have so many "outdated" things like voting by going through doors or physically standing in a location.
This whole system is just incredible
The remaining two days of a planned five-day debate on May’s proposals will be postponed, along with votes on her agreement with Brussels, to a date yet to be fixed.
This was done by a parliamentary procedure which does not require approval from MPs - despite Speaker John Bercow saying it would be “discourteous” to do so. In fact, all it required is a government enforcer - known as the whip - to shout “tomorrow”.
The British government has absolute power and authority within Parliament until it loses the confidence of the House. Procedure is almost entirely within its purview of powers if it chooses (it usually defers to the Speaker) but on scheduling matters like this the assumption of the confidence of the House means that it is presumed that a vote would come out the same as the government's order.
To use Congress again, the Speaker and Majority Leader in the House and Senate have equally comparable power to dismiss things like that in terms of controlling the schedule. Theoretically, yes, the remainder of the body could challenge, but it probably would mean the resignation of the Speaker/Leader as they clearly no longer control their caucus let alone the body. In the UK the same thing would signify loss of confidence and thus the collapse of the government.
Where there's a difference is in the power of the whip, in most other legislatures it is presumed to vote as your party whip demands unless stated otherwise, in the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, this has less tradition (and they have less power) so "conscience votes" are literally all the votes. Generally, Republicans and Democrats will still vote procedure matters with party leadership, if only to vote against the bill itself. (ex: John Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.")
