The issue is no longer foxhunting. From now on the argument is about the rule of law. I make no secret of my belief that a civilised society should not allow an amusement which has as its object - or at least its known consequence - the death of an animal. If the right to hunt foxes is a question of civil liberties, so is the right to organise bear-baiting and cockfights. But the debate on that subject is about to be concluded - at least in parliament. No doubt, it will go on in the country. That is the way that free societies behave. Foxhunters will, entirely legitimately, attempt to persuade the House of Commons to change its mind. Today's question concerns how they react to the decision when and while it has the force of law.  There are several precedents to guide their conduct. I spent years of my life telling trade unions that there were no such things as "Tory laws". Most of the foxhunting fraternity took the same view. Those of us who told Arthur Scargill to respect the will of a democratically elected parliament are entitled to say the same to the masters of assorted hunts. Indeed, we are entitled to ask what so many people asked us when we were part of what was laughingly called the Labour party leadership. Are persons of influence and authority going to set an example by condemning their lawless associates? That is a question the Prince of Wales now needs to answer. Rumours that he will go on hunting, even when it is illegal, are clearly absurd. A prince who knowingly defied the law could not become king. But last week's events still cause him a problem. The upper-class hooligans who invaded the House of Commons are associated with him in the public mind. The newspapers published photographs of them grinning together, and he is a well-known supporter of the cause which prompted their "invasion" of the Commons.  While it was still a legal activity, no one could reasonably feel more than distaste for his hunting enthusiasm. Now that it is about to become illegal, he has a duty to tell the more excitable devotees of the chase that they are no more above the law than the miners were. He ought already to have condemned the Hooray Henrys who disrupted the Commons. The Act of Settlement requires him to protect parliament. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and put his silence down to slow reaction time. If he remains silent when the promised lawlessness begins, it will be generally assumed that he supports the motorway blockades and the trashing of MPs' constituency offices.   No doubt, apologists for the monarchy will say that he should not be dragged into politics. Right, but too late. Thanks to his hooligan associates, he is already part of the political debate. To preserve his constitutional integrity he needs to say that, emotional huntsman though he remains, he accepts the will of parliament and expects all of his putative subjects to do the same. If Charles III makes the same mistake as Charles I, his defiance of parliament will have less spectacular consequences. But its long-term effect on the future of the monarchy might be more damaging.  People who pay parking fines and get caught on speed cameras are likely to be impatient with the notion that foxhunters are a special legal case. That is the cry of every petty criminal who is caught. The Prince of Wales will not increase his popularity by tacitly subscribing to the view that their cause justifies a privileged position which would be denied to the men and women protesting against   an unjust war and was denied to men at Cortonwood colliery who demonstrated against the decision to destroy their livelihoods.  All the emotive arguments in favour of foxhunting could have been applied to mining 20 years ago, with 10 times more force. Jobs were lost. A way of life was sacrificed. A noble part of our history died. The newspapers which are treating the Commons invaders like heroes need to show a little consistency. And the heir to the throne ought to create a few headlines by speaking up for the law.  Neither the Prince of Wales nor the Countryside Alliance can hide behind the demeaning excuse that the hooligans are an unwanted addition the peaceful protests. Grown-ups have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We know, as a result of last week's events, that a lawless fringe - blocking roads and throwing flash bombs at police horses - will always hang round the pro-hunt demonstrations, initially peaceful or not. Someone the hunters will listen to has to demand that the law be respected. The Prince of Wales is the ideal candidate for the job - unless he is a secret sympathiser with the people who hold democracy in contempt.