Until it can be established that hunting with hounds is a uniquely cruel way of eliminating the surplus population of foxes, we can only observe that the case for legislation has yet to be proven.. But it is too late to hide behind a costume of demotic attire: the anti-hunt brigades have their quarry in sight and they will not be put off the scent by such transparent trickery.If the opponents of hunting wish to base their opposition on ethical grounds, rather than on simple antagonism to the recreational activities of people they dislike for other reasons, they have a moral duty to oppose all forms of animal cruelty with equal vigour. In what must be the silliest offer of a compromise on record, Lord Daresbury, who is chairman of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, has suggested that, if the huntsmen were to abandon their traditional red jackets, the forces of progressivism might allow them to continue their pursuit of foxes across field and moor. His reasoning contains a kernel of truth: the red jackets are associated with the attire of toffs, and a large part of the agitation against fox-hunting would seem to be based on class antagonism (cf the failure of the animal welfare lobby to campaign against fishing).

Our guess is that he does not much care about the matter one way or the other, but, as a politician, he is blown about by other people's strong feelings.On the one hand, many of the activists in his own party care passionately about the matter; on the other, his desire to get everyone under New Labour's broad tent makes him sensitive to the Countryside Alliance's successful linking of hunting with all matters of rural life, from farming to seasonal employment.The political fix has been to buy time through the appointment of the Burns inquiry into fox-hunting, which - fortuitously - is not expected to report before the end of June: that will be just too late to introduce legislation in the current session of parliament.Not that matters are much more satisfactory on the other side of the hedge. These illustrious members of the community have been sharing their thoughts on hunting with the Prime Minister in a spate of letters that call on Mr Blair to support the private member's Bill, being introduced by his bete noire, Ken Livingstone, to ban hunting with hounds. Our Prime Minister may not fear the serried ranks of hunt saboteurs, whose every act of extremism merely serves to alienate those of us who fail to see the point of chasing about the countryside after an exhausted, panting fox - but he has never failed to show his respect to the featured stars of cool Britannia. His own views about the necessity of banning hunting are notoriously hard to read: one moment he is characterising the sport as yet another product of the forces of conservatism; the next, his official spokesman is letting it be known that his government will not be finding parliamentary time for Mr Livingstone's Bill this session. But the thousands who mounted their horses to follow the 300 Boxing Day bank-holiday hunts have been in the thoughts of pop stars including Noel Gallagher and Sir Paul McCartney, as well as thespians such as Jenny Seagrove, Sir John Gielgud and Dame Judi Dench this weekend. Anything short of that is just fiddling while the chains grow longer..

IT MAY seem a long way from barking hounds and mud-spattered flanks to the cosy fastnesses of the Soho drinking clubs where the stars of stage and screen are more usually to be found. If the object is to break the chains and prevent gazumping, then the only answer has to be to introduce a legally binding deposit, as happens in Scotland and the Continent. Which mortgage provider, or purchaser, is going to rely completely on the seller for the survey? And, if they do, how are they to sue if the details prove inadequate?If the object of the exercise is to speed up England's abysmally slow process of conveyancing, then computerising land records and simplifying the legal documents are already on the way. It merely removes the cost of paying out for an unused survey for the purchaser who is outbid at the last moment.

There is still nothing to stop a later buyer coming in with a higher price the day before completion, and so wrecking the whole process. Nor does it, or necessarily should it, transfer all the onus of responsibility from buyer to seller. Forcing the house owner to spend pounds 550-pounds 650 on a "pack" may be all right in a seller's market of high prices in London. It hardly works for an owner desperate to sell a pounds 5,000 back-to-back in the north.Nor does the scheme stop gazumping.

The idea of placing on the seller the obligation of producing, and guaranteeing, the results of a search and survey is an appealing one. If every potential buyer didn't have to do his own search and survey, then the transactions would be quicker and the unfortunate bidder who was then gazumped would not have wasted his time and money.Barely has the Government begun to consider how it might all be put into legislation, however, than officials are having to think of exemptions. For a government as enamoured of fiddly interventions, it is hardly surprising that it has come up with a gesture that promises much, costs little and could end up achieving almost nothing. There is nothing intrinsically bad about the Government's plan for a "seller's pack" now being tried out in a pilot scheme in Bristol. NO OTHER country in the world boasts Britain's dependence on the ownership of a home as the single most important economic fact in an individual's life. No other country boasts, either, the miseries of trying to buy or sell that home.