Today's papers respond to the dramatic events in Westminster yesterday.

Times

"The demonstrators' invasion of the chamber was an act of physical futility matched only by the political futility of the bill whose passage they attempted to disrupt."

Guardian

"The irruption into the Commons chamber yesterday afternoon of five thugs, following a series of assaults on police protecting the House of Parliament, may not have been such a life-and-death challenge to this nation's democratic existence as Colonel Tejero's gun-toting raid was on the Spanish parliament in 1981. But it came from the same impulse. It was a desecration of the basic principles of democracy and law and it was absolutely beyond excuse."

Independent

"A stronger prime minister, not one hobbled by the Iraq debacle, might have buried this bill long ago. A wiser one would never have allowed his party near it. Now we have a single sectional issue conjuring up the spectre of anarchy on the streets of Westminster. The tactics of the militant hunting lobby are utterly contemptible. But so is political weakness that cuts a fanatical minority so much slack."

Telegraph

"If Tony Blair and his colleagues think the current legislative insult aimed at rural Britain will be quickly forgotten, they were disabused of this notion yesterday, even if the Commons voted by the wide margin of 356 to 166 for the hunting ban."

Sun

"There was a full review of security just months ago after Tony Blair was hit with a flour bomb. That review was clearly useless. Who's to blame? The home secretary? The Metropolitan Police commissioner? The Commons serjeant at arms? Someone should be carrying the can. They can't all say 'Not me, guv'. There is a fine line to be drawn between open democracy and rule by fortress. A ring of steel around parliament may seem very un-British, but we daren't risk a bloodbath in the House."

Express

"We are all of us grateful that the invaders in the House of Commons yesterday were protesters not terrorists. This time we were lucky. The shocking lapse of security that allowed five pro-hunt militants into the House just gave their cause publicity and robbed MPs of 25 minutes of precious debating time. But what if the intruders had been wielding guns instead of angry words? If they had sprayed MPs with bullets, the pictures we would have seen in newspapers would have been very different."

Mail

"In the autumn sunshine, Parliament Square blazed with passion. These were citizens who would normally never dream of breaking the law but felt driven to despair and even violence - which can't possibly be condoned - by the bullying threat to their whole way of life. In contrast, a smug, arrogant Commons seemed listless with apathy. For much of the debate, the green benches were largely empty. Most MPs didn't bother listening to the arguments, far less to the protests outside. They were - and are - determined to ban hunting, no matter what."

Mirror

"Yesterday's well-organised demonstration shows that this battle is not over. Not by a long way, even though so many people oppose a sport which they feel passionately is barbaric. MPs refuse to compromise any more than those who support hunting are willing to end their protests. Tony Blair must realise he has got into a terrible mess. Once again he was mysteriously absent when the vote was taken."