even in Germany there is a strong and influential party, among
legal as well as medical authorities, in favour of taking the same step.
On the other hand, France has in some matters of detail departed from
her general principle in these matters, and has, for instance--without
doubt in an altogether justifiable manner--taken part in the
international movement against what is called the white slave trade.
This mutual reaction of nations is well recognized by the more alert and
progressive minds in every country, jealous of any undue interference
with liberty. When, for instance, a Bill is introduced in the English
Parliament for promoting inquisitorial and vexatious interference with
matters that are not within the sphere of legislation it is eagerly
discussed in Germany before even its existence is known to most people
in England, not so much out of interest in English Affairs as from a
sensitive dread that English example may affect German legislation.[209]

Not only, indeed, have we to recognize the existence of these clearly
marked and profound differences in legislative reaction to immorality.
We have also to realize that at different periods there are general
movements, to some extent overpassing national bounds, of rise and of
fall in this reaction.

A sudden impulse seizes on a community, and spreads to other
communities, to attempt to suppress some form of immorality by law. Such
attempts, as we know, have always ended in failure or worse than
failure, for laws against immorality are either not carried out, or, if
they are carried out, it is at once realized that new evils are created
worse than the original evils, and the laws speedily fall into abeyance
or are repealed. That has been repeatedly seen, and is well illustrated
by the history of prostitution, a sexual manifestation which for two
thousand years all sorts of persons in authority have sought to suppress
off-hand by law or by administrative fiat. From the time when
Christianity gained full political power, prostitution has again and
again been prohibited, under the severest penalties, but always in vain.
The mightiest emperors--Theodosius, Valentinian, Justinian, Karl the
Great, St. Louis, Frederick Barbarossa--all had occasion to discover
that might was here in vain, and worse than in vain, that they could not
always obey their own moral ordinances, still less coerce their subjects
into doing so, and that even so far as, on the surface, they were
su