I must begin by stating that I found W.E. Forester's argument to be compelling, passionate, organized, thorough, and well-supported. That said, I was able to focus more on the topic of the debate than merely the style in which he delivered it, which I soon appreciated once I began to read Montague's contention. Forester appeals to his audience from the outset with an apology. He is courteous, humble, and persuasive. He maintains this strategy throughout the argument, often claiming that he does not wish to dwell upon certain aspects of his argument or to waste anyone's time. Also, he continually repeats the word "we" in order to identify himself with members of the House, as well as the people, and represents himself as just one among many working for the good of a whole. With each new point, Forester introduces the problem, provides factual information, answers how the problem may be amended and the steps to be taken, and then sums up by reiterating what he has just proposed. All the while, he speaks not just to their minds, but to their hearts. He wishes everyone to benefit from the new bill, not just the government or the taxpayers, but especially the children, and eventually society as a whole. He is indeed brave in what he proposes, but he addresses any questions or disputes that may arise. He often anticipates an objection to his proposal, states the perceived question and sufficiently answers. He seems to have found a way to please everyone, excepting Lord Montague. Had I been a member of the House those many years ago, Montague would not have received my acceptance. I found his counter-argument to be combative (as opposed to Forester's civility), heedless (he posed too many questions that had been answered), and full of holes (again, his questions were followed by two many "ifs" and not enough answers). Also, I found his incessant use of numbers and statistics to be wearying. His detached attitude toward the subject did not win my sympathy, but rather my apathy. As to the content, I believe it may be properly summed up in the words of W.E. Forester: I am not a fanatic in this matter of education, I know well that knowledge is not a virtue -- that no education, much less elementary education, gives power to resist temptation -- is a safeguard against calamity; but we all know that want of education -- that ignorance is weakness, and that weakness in this hard struggling world generally brings misfortune -- often leads to vice. (466) For the most part, I agree with this statement. However, I do believe education is a virtue. I particularly support the idea that ignorance leads to vice, especially in today's society. However, ignorance is not always the result of a lack of education. But this statement was not made today, It was made more than a century ago and might have been more accurate then. However, if we relate this statement to Dickens's novel, we'll find a great disparity. After all, Bradley Headstone was very well educated, a schoolmaster even, who turned out to be the most vile character. Wegg was educated, as was Charlie, and neither of them were very attractive characters. As we've asked before ... what might Dickens have been saying? I wonder if he would have supported such a bill?