Oscar Wilde memorably dismissed foxhunting as “the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable”. The parliamentary campaign to ban what a minority are entitled to regard as part of their way of life has, though, been a case of the implacable in full pursuit of the illogical. Hundreds of hours of parliamentary time have been wasted, many more hundreds of hours of courtroom time lie ahead and perhaps thousands of hours of police time might be consumed if and when this measure is implemented. It has been a ludicrous spectacle politically and utterly divisive socially. Nothing positive will come of it. This has been an episode of parliamentary madness.

It also reflects especially badly on the Prime Minister. On Tuesday night he finally chose to cast a vote in the House of Commons on this question. He opted to back the compromise option, namely allowing hunting to continue but under a strict system of licence and regulation. He did so on the basis that it was “in the best interests of the country”. He could not, how- ever, inspire many government colleagues to join him. A reasonable proposal went down by a 117-vote margin.

Tony Blair can only blame himself for this outcome. If the “middle way”, which he has come round to supporting publicly, is in the best interests of the country now, it surely must have been so for the past seven years. Yet Mr Blair has consistently failed to declare his hand, signalling a distaste for the hunting ban through nods and winks, newspaper leaks and by proxy, courtesy of supporters sent out to be shot politically on behalf of their master. He has continually deluded himself that something, almost anything, might eventually turn up to relieve him of this issue. Now he has been hunted down by Labour MPs as a consequence of his own indecision.

Mr Blair might hope that his belated vote will be taken as a conciliatory gesture. It will not. If anything, the Prime Minister has left himself in the worst of all worlds. Labour MPs and party activists will be irritated that his pre- vious claims to favour an outright ban were insincere, while those who aspire to continue with their pastime have no reason to thank a man who could have blocked this illiberal measure at an earlier stage in proceedings, but conspicuously declined to do so.

The broader impression left is that of a paradoxical prime minister. Mr Blair has shown admirable courage in foreign affairs — not just in Iraq, but on Kosovo and Sierra Leone as well. Yet he has been incapable of mobilising the moderate and rational wing of his party through leadership on the infinitely less awkward matter of the precise methods by which the fox population is kept within sensible numbers. Tough restrictions on foxhunting are appropriate. A total ban is excessive.

This should not, nevertheless, be an excuse for those who have lost in the House of Commons to engage in anti-parliamentary militancy. There will be an opportunity for them to challenge both the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 and to explore whether the Human Rights Act offers them succour. They should do so patiently and in a measured tone and not suggest that they believe the law of the land — if that is what the ban becomes incorporated within — is a thing that they are entitled to approach à la carte. Responsibility must be the order of the hour. It is an immense pity that Mr Blair himself did not act responsibly when it really would have counted.