We have been enabled to see what a mistake it is to pretend that our Government toleration is _necessary for the protection of modest women_. If that were the case, we may be sure they would reject this annihilation of their sisters for their benefit; but it is proved, on the contrary, that _the insecurity of every woman_ results from the prerogatives granted to vice in France. Are we not aware, that nations which have not our monstrous measures of preservation, permit the girl to go out, to travel, and live by herself, for the purpose of either the secondary or the higher course of instruction; whilst in Paris more than 100,000 regulars and soldiers of the national guard, and a numerous body of police, fail to inspire the young woman of the middle class with sufficient confidence to allow her to venture a single step without a protector, or the lower-class young woman with a security sufficient to keep her from being made a merchantable article? Without even leaving our territory, any one may be convinced, by comparison, that the unprotected woman is so much the more respected in proportion as profligacy has less of license. Charts of France have been made, coloured more or less black according to the degree of instruction in each of our “departments.” It would be easy to make such an one for morality. It would demonstrate that the departments in which _the machinery for morals_ is the most active, the most inquisitorial towards the registered girl, are those in which a young girl who should have committed the offence of walking out “unprotected” is no longer marriageable. Debauchery, driven from the street, would also be driven from cafés, hotels, &c., otherwise than by laughter-moving and arbitrary regulations against the “unprotected” woman. In this matter, then, we must further substitute, for police rule, a general law to reach the real doers of the evil, in the persons of those lodging-house keepers, tavern-keepers, coffee-house proprietors, &c., who, by the greediest complicity, make vice a matter of trade. But, alas! the law promulgated in 1778 alone remained to us for dealing a blow at this abuse, and, after applying it during the former half of the century, we declare it to be inapplicable in the latter, without finding a substitute for it. Shall we profess ourselves too much depraved to go back in this matter even to the measures adopted by a reforming Government at the period of the greatest decay of morals in our former monarchy?