AN ENGLISHMAN'S home is his castle is a saying that has always given me a warm feeling, a feeling of being in control and secluded behind my own front door. Until recently, I lived in tied or rented properties, but that never detracted from that feeling of wellbeing.

I make no apologies for linking these thoughts to my subject this week, the Parliamentary debacle of November 18/19, for it signalled the end of privacy within one's property. Your home is no longer your castle. The Prime Minister presided over enacting a law which, in rural terms, is undemocratic and will deprive a lot of his constituents of an important part of their heritage, for the men of Durham have always been great sportsmen with hound, terrier or long dog. His majority will suffer as a result.

Since the axe fell, I have spoken to three peers, Labour, Tory and a crossbencher. All confirmed that that the debate was about class and that was more than confirmed by the writhing and venom of Lord Whitty alone. He and his cohorts believe they have rid the country of a controlling group of toffs; instead they have achieved an everlasting hatred in the countryside for them and the pressure groups that have fuelled their ignorance. They think they have taken control.

What is it that they wish to control? What do we have that they want? Is it access, birds, bees, reptiles, mammals, the peace or the quiet? No: the target is the independence of the countryman and woman.

The Countryside Alliance figures show the number of people who hunt, but the bigots of Westminster will never accept those, for they are tainted by bias. However, it is a fact that only about 1.5pc (850,000 souls) depend on the land for a living and within their ranks most have no case against hunting in any form. Then there is the other 8pc (4.5m) who live in, but play no part in, the land management process, abiding in what are euphemistically called rural areas. Among this group I reckon most either support hunting or are ambivalent. Within that 5.3m, the vote for hunting would be carried.

However, within the 850,000 lies the ownership and occupancy of most of rural Britain and it is their castle. If Lord Whitty and his howling supporters from the Commons were to come to farms and villages as normal visitors, they would see working people who in many cases are capital rich, but poor in income terms.

It is the underlying wealth that gets so deep into their Socialist boots. They despise it, and all who have it. Which makes me furious because our elected representatives who have allowed this travesty are by their own hands provided with salaries and, more importantly, pensions, far beyond the expectations of normal people.

There is little doubt that the spectre of nationalisation now looms over our countryside as our ability to invest, work and seek a return from the land is restricted by the current rural policies of a Government with neither the capital nor the guts to go all out to take possession of all that remains of this green and pleasant land.

Over the top? Maybe, but be aware I may be nearer the truth than you think. Take the regulation list at present. It contains CROW, CS, SSSIs, ESAs, MTR, and of course the SF; all restrictions heaped upon us and removing our right to treat our homes as our castles.

It has to be said that the leadership from both the NFU and the CLA has allowed the Government to get away with promoting the notion that we, the food producing industry, have been heavily subsidised. That, of course, has never been the case for we have been subsidising the consumer and giving access to a unique and beautiful land. The rise in wealth on the back of a land price unrelated to production has stuck in the left wing craw and then, to boot, we have had the audacity to enjoy the chase.

All the advisers to agriculture say we must keep the SFP right away from the consumer so that, if Joe Public wants food from English acres, he will have to pay its full cost of production and give us profit, too.

I have never known any subject so despised, debated and dismissed as the hunting issue. I don't hunt, but my wife, children and grandchildren do. One of the last has dyslexia and hunting has been a vital part of his life for he can outperform a lot of his contemporaries; it was a career opportunity he could see ahead of him - all gone.

I have friends in hunting loving the horses, hounds and, yes, the fox as well. They now stare at a bleak future: out of work, house, home. Castle? They are qualified professionals with no wish nor any ability to make a career change. They are an honourable and unique band - feel guilty my "honourable friends" in Westminster.

In the care of this rare set of men and women have been horses and hounds. Now they, too, are deprived of purpose, of the thing they have loved far more than most humans will ever understand. They do not have our understanding, or foresight. Instead, hundreds of years of breeding are instilled in them which is an instinct now taken away and, with it, their lives.

And consider this My Lords and members of the Commons. Who among you would take a gun and put down that to which you have given your love and life? None among you even begin to understand the emotion and depth of feeling that exists in hunt kennels across the land, but you don't care.

That sums up this derisory law. Founded on ignorance, class hate and bigotry, it heralds a decline in the quality of green England and Wales But there will be an even more contentious sequel for, in the wings, the "welfarists" have a case prepared, with videos as well, to go for shooting.

They have real problems if they take this one on, and logically they will. Shooting, unlike hunting, is not an everyman's sport. It can be enjoyed only by those who have the right to shoot; hunting has been by consent to anyone. To take up the gun is expensive, requiring little skill.Corporate shooting generates a huge amount of rural income and undoubtedly business on a wide scale