Each delay in Parliamentary proceedings further angered Labour backbenchers who became more adamant that their strongly-held will should be imposed. However, it also served to motivate hunt supporters, increasingly confident that their tradition would be preserved.
That divide was clearly visible again yesterday after the Countryside Alliance failed in its High Court bid to halt the ban. The group believed its legal challenge had solid grounds, because of the use of the draconian Parliament Act by the Government to finally bypass sustained House of Lords opposition.
By announcing it will take the case to the Court of Appeal, the Countryside Alliance has clearly not
given up the chase.
Moreover, time is now running before the ban is due to take effect on February 18, with the time nigh for the group to very carefully consider its next step, given how feelings remain so passionate.
Many hunt supporters want the law to be openly flouted, and an enforcement nightmare created for the police on the eve of the General Election. However more restrained members maintain that hunts should only operate within the strict parameters of the new law.
Indeed, that is the only logical course the Countryside Alliance can take if it wishes to retain credibility. In doing so, the group can legitimately voice its feelings during the General Election when the issue will be prominent for a third successive poll.
Such opposition, if civilised, may leave many Labour MPs regretting that they allowed the Government to dither for so long, and not act sooner.
And, of course, there would be no reason for the ban not to be swiftly reversed if the pro-hunting view held sway, and sufficient MPs of that persuasion were returned.
It is these elected politicians who, after all, decide which laws to pass, and also justify them. And the most effective way to hold them accountable for their actions is through peaceful protest, and the ballot box.

The age debate
No substitute for Commons experience
ONE of the key challenges facing all politicians is how to captivate the 'youth' vote, given the growing apathy shown towards the electoral process.
To many, it has always been perverse that young people must be 21 before they can stand for public office, three years after they become eligible to vote.
It is, for that reason, that the Government has signalled its intention to remove the anomaly after the next election. And it is apt that the minister championing the reform is Christopher Leslie, who became Westminster's youngest member when first elected to represent Shipley in 1997 as a 24-year-old novice. Such inexperience did not prevent Mr Leslie from being re-elected, or earning a firm foothold on the ministerial ladder. However, that does not mean his proposals are correct.
MPs are required to be skilful administrators when it comes to dealing with often complicated and emotive constituency matters. But they also require a broad knowledge on a maze of policy and moral issues to enable them to contribute intelligently to Commons debates. That wisdom is traditionally gained from a combination of higher education, political campaigning and a successful career.
For this reason, it would be wrong for MPs to lower the age limit to a level where students would become eligible to sit in the Commons while still studying for their A-levels, and not fully versed in world affairs. It would be unfair to them, and also to their constituents.
Such a move would also contrast sharply with the United States where aspiring members of Congressmust be at least 25 before joining the House of Representatives, or 30 if they wish to become a senator.
The onus is on Mr Leslie to use his know-how to understand that there is no substitute for experience, and to develop a more meaningful method for engaging young people in the political process.

Jane's legacy
Achievement will be cherished forever
THERE are no superlatives left to describe the fortitude shown by terminal cancer sufferer Jane Tomlinson over the past four years.
Many such victims would simply have accepted their fate with stoicism when informed that their condition was incurable.
However Jane, a loving wife, devoted mother to three children, and health worker simply viewed her own bleak prognosis as an opportunity to assist others as she promptly set about raising £1m for charity.
Many questioned the wisdom of Jane competing in many of the world's most gruelling athletic challenges as her physical condition ailed. At times, the pain etched across her face was too much to bear, as her target appeared unattainable. Yet, that was never going to be the case given a depth of resolve and determination that continues to amaze and humble. And it is why it was entirely appropriate that Jane reached her magical target yesterday, a day after she was named as the Greatest British Campaigner at a star-studded awards gala.
There could be no more fitting accolade for Jane, now a symbol of hope to cancer sufferers around the world and an inspiration to professional sportsmen and women. She can now spend precious time with her family in Leeds, safe in the knowledge that she has created a legacy which will be cherished forever.