4. That the broad gauge involves the greater outlay, and that we have not been able to discover, either in the maintenance of way, in the cost of locomotive power, or in the other annual expenses, any adequate reduction to compensate for the additional first cost. Therefore, esteeming the importance of the highest speed on express trains for the accommodation of a comparatively small number of persons, however desirable that may be to them, as of far less moment than affording increased convenience to the general commercial traffic of the country, we are inclined to consider the narrow gauge as that which should be preferred for general convenience, and therefore, if it were imperative to produce uniformity, we should recommend that uniformity to be produced by an alteration of the broad to the narrow gauge.... Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Commissioners recommended that 4 feet 8½ inches should be fixed by law as the standard gauge of the country; and that as to the existing broad gauge lines, either they should be altered to the narrow gauge, or some course adopted which would admit of narrow gauge carriages passing along them.[57] This adverse report was a great surprise to the supporters of the broad gauge system, as rumours had led them to hope for a different result. Immediately after its appearance, several documents were published, containing powerful and severe strictures on the proceedings and opinions of the Commissioners. The most important of these was written by Mr. Saunders, Mr. Daniel Gooch, and Mr. Brunel. It occupied fifty closely printed folio pages, and was entitled, ‘Observations on the Report of the Gauge Commissioners, presented to Parliament.’ To this, ‘Supplemental Observations’ were added, after the publication of the Evidence and the Appendix to the Report. In the conclusion of the ‘Observations’ the writers gave a summary of the points they considered to have been proved in the controversy, namely-- * * * * * That the question of ‘break of gauge’ originated as a cloak to a monopoly. That even if the gauge were uniform, through trains would be impracticable. That the transfer would be of little inconvenience. That any advantage of small waggons was applicable to the broad gauge, but that the advantage of large waggons was not applicable to the narrow. That the competition between the two systems was advantageous. That the final recommendations of the Commissioners were at variance with their separate conclusions. That it would be unjust to refuse to allow the broad gauge to be laid down on lines for which it was already sanctioned by Parliament. That the enquiry before the Commissioners was not properly conducted, and that consequently no legislation ought to be founded on it.