On 27 May 1976, the shadow industry secretary, Michael Heseltine, seized the ceremonial mace in the House of Commons and brandished it towards the government benches. The protest came at the climax of a chaotic debate on a government bill to nationalise large parts of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.

The Labour government, led by James Callaghan as prime minister, had at this stage lost its parliamentary majority.

***

Heseltine’s mace-swinging was the culmination of a fiercely contested procedural debate over the government’s Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The speaker, following representations from Conservative MP Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, ruled that the proposed legislation was a ‘hybrid bill’ – meaning it would be subject to separate, more complex standing orders.

The government announced it would seek to sidestep the speaker’s ruling. It moved that “in view of the serious consequences to the industries concerned and for those employed in them of further delay and uncertainty… any [relevant] standing orders… are dispensed with.”

The debate on the motion was held on the evening of 27 May 1976. A division on a Conservative amendment to accept the speaker’s ruling was tied at 303 votes each. The speaker, George Thomas, used his casting vote to defeat the amendment – in line with ‘speaker Denison’s rule’, thus preserving the bill.

The government’s motion was then moved and agreed to by a single vote, 304 to 303.

This came, it was alleged, after a Labour MP broke his ‘pair’. A ‘paired’ MP is a parliamentarian that has voluntarily promised not to vote – in an agreement between government and opposition whips via the ‘usual channels’. The pairing enables another MP from a separate party to be absent, usually on account of illness, without impacting the outcome of a vote. Their effective abstention is cancelled out.

In the case of 27 May 1976, had the Labour MP not broken his ‘pairing’ agreement, convention would have compelled the speaker to defeat the motion with his casting vote. ‘Speaker Denison’s rule’ says the chair should not create a parliamentary majority where one does not exist.

Once the result was announced, a gleeful group of Welsh Labour MPs began to sing The Red Flag, a traditional socialist and party anthem.

With cries of “We’ll keep the red flag flying here” ringing round the chamber, an incensed Heseltine acted. In an apparently spontaneous act of fury, he marched to the table of the House, grabbed the 1.5-metre long silver gilt Mace, and held it aloft, shouting at the Labour benches. James Prior, the shadow leader of the house, immediately intervened and wrested the Mace from him, returning it to its place.

Heseltine, in his capacity as shadow industry secretary, had led the debate for the Conservative opposition.

The Mace is the symbol of royal authority in parliament; without it, the House cannot lawfully sit or pass legislation. Removing it from its rightful place, as Heseltine did, is therefore considered a serious and singularly taboo act of disorder.

The speaker responded by suspending the sitting.

Heseltine, otherwise known as Tarzan for his famous mane of golden hair, issued an almost-immediate apology for his actions. “I was unwarrantably provoked by the singing of the Red Flag”, he said.

“I thought, ‘Here is a neo-Marxist group in the House of Commons. Having cheated over the motion, cheated in the lobbies, I thought that in the circumstances they might as well have the mace as well.’

“I rapidly realised this was a reflection on the authority of the speaker and the House. I tried to apologise and will do so unreservedly as soon as I can.”

Heseltine then delivered an official apology in a statement to the House of Commons on 28 May 1976. In a short statement, he said: “Last night, Mr. Speaker, I removed the Mace from its position. I deeply regret my action. I was hoping to be able to apologise to you and the House when you returned to the chair last night.

“That was not possible, and I now take this first opportunity of apologising unreservedly.”

***

Heseltine faced calls to resign from the shadow cabinet. He was subsequently shuffled, against his will, to the post of shadow environment secretary.

Meanwhile, the Conservative chief whip, Humphrey Atkins, issued a statement expressing his party’s fury over the government’s behaviour.

Atkins said: “The government won the second division by deliberately breaking a pair. It was a deliberate device by the government, and we are to end all pairing for the remainder of this session, including the prime minister.”

The Conservative opposition then boycotted all procedural cooperation with the government, including pairing, for the next month. This was a significant move, given the government did not have an overall majority. It risked the absences of MPs effectively dictating the outcome of votes.

On 22 June, Callaghan issued a statement saying the vote of 27 May would be “considered again”.

The prime minister acknowledged the allegation that the government had won the vote by “questionable means” and admitted that a “misunderstanding” had occurred with regard to pairing.

He said: “It was… alleged that the government’s majority had been achieved by questionable means, and since then there has been a sense of grievance, resulting in the breakdown of communications through the usual channels.

“It is not in the interests of the House that matters should remain in this state. The business of the House is being disrupted and the Members themselves are being put to considerable inconvenience and even, in some cases, distress.”

He added: “The agreed result of their inquiry makes clear that there was undoubtedly misunderstanding about the pairing and voting arrangements on 27th May and that the normal courtesy of consultation about changes in pairing was not observed as it should have been.”

The Conservative position was therefore considered again during a debate on 29 June. Margaret Thatcher’s party tabled a motion to regard the bill’s status as ‘hybrid’, as per the speaker’s previous ruling. A motion was also tabled to set out what would occur in the event of a tie. It called on the speaker to ignore the precedent set by his 19th century predecessor, John Evelyn Denison, and vote with the Conservative motion – effectively creating a majority.

This motion relayed that “in the event of an equality of votes in a division on the motion in the name of Mrs Margaret Thatcher for the re-committal of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill to a select committee, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the question is agreed to.”

It was defeated by 320 votes to 293. As was the substantive motion relating to the bill’s alleged ‘hybridity’ (by 311 votes to 297).

The bill did not take on ‘hybrid status’, therefore. And yet, after all that, subsequent disagreement between the commons and Lords meant the bill ran out of parliamentary time and was ‘lost’.

The bill was reintroduced in the next session. Following concessions by the government, it received royal assent as the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act on 17 March 1977.

***

The heated session of 27 May 1976 was also the scene of a series of scuffles. Dennis Canavan, the Labour MP for Stirlingshire West, was reported to be “in full physical conflict” with Geoffrey Rippon, a former Tory minister.

Following the House’s suspension, Labour MP Tom Swain “was seen to be fighting with a Tory member, Mr Michael Spicer”.

In 1988, a Scottish member of the Labour Party, Ron Brown, picked up the mace during a debate on a poll tax. He unintentionally dropped it, committing damage worth about £1,500. Brown covered the cost, though he said at the time: “If that bauble or ornament is more important than all the struggle, there is something wrong with this party.”

In December 2018, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle seized the ceremonial mace during an especially heated debate over the government’s Brexit policy.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Russell-Moyle said: “The symbolic gesture of lifting the mace and removing it is that the will of parliament to govern is no longer there has been removed. I felt parliament had effectively given up its sovereign right to govern properly.

“They stopped me before I got out of the chamber and I wasn’t going to struggle with someone wearing a huge sword on their hip.”

In a July 2018 interview with the BBC, Heseltine said he seized the mace because he was “appalled” by the parliamentary chicanery on the government benches.

He said: “I picked up the mace, offered it to the Labour benches and said, ‘You have abused the authority of the House, you better have the symbol as well’. And then I put it down again.”

Heseltine maintained that the pairing system “relies on trust, my word is my bond… and if you can’t believe that, then the pairing system collapses and the business of parliament becomes chaotic”.