THE GREAT BATTLE OF THE GAUGES.—The Parliamentary Committee to whom had been intrusted the duty of reporting on the various railways proposed for this district, commenced their labours on the 5th of May. The members of the committee were the Right Honourable F. Shaw (Dublin University), chairman; Messrs. Bramston, Horne, Drummond, Villiers, Stuart, and Lockhart. The lines brought before them were: BROAD GAUGE. 1—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway. 2—Oxford and Rugby Railway. NARROW GAUGE. 3—London, Worcester, and Rugby and Oxford Railway. 4—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Worcester Branch and Deviation. 5—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Wolverhampton Extension. 6—London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway—the Tring line. 7—Grand Junction—Dudley Branch, Shrewsbury and Stafford, and Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton. 8—Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway. All the great railway interests of the country thought themselves interested in the decision of the committee, and brought their forces to bear upon the battle; inasmuch as it was supposed that it would decide to which of the gauges the preference should be given in coming railway economics, and so be of vital importance to the opponent systems and the great companies connected with them. For months prior to this contest the press had swarmed with pamphlets, some contending that a greater power, speed, and safety could be attained upon the broad gauge; others requiring a uniformity of gauge throughout the country, and pointing out the inconvenience of a break of gauge at Gloucester and elsewhere: but the decision of the committee had very little reference to any of these matters, and was clearly influenced by different considerations. The principal counsel employed were Mr. Talbot and Mr. Cockburn for the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line; Mr. Austin and Sergeant Wrangham for the London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire line; Mr. Daniell for the Birmingham and Gloucester; and Mr. Kinglake for the Great Western Company: besides innumerable others. Mr. Austin opened the case on behalf of the London and Birmingham line to Tring, which he contended was all that the district could require; that it would be absurd to introduce the broad gauge north of Birmingham; and, lastly, the Board of Trade had reported in its favour. The witnesses connected with this county, who were examined in its favour, were Mr. Richard Smith, mining agent to Lord Ward (whose interests had been especially consulted in this scheme); Mr. William Hancock, ironmaster, Cookley; Mr. W. Berrows, ironmaster, Dudley; Mr. E. Williams, miller, Dudley; Mr. Best, Kidderminster; Mr. H. Brinton, Kidderminster; Mr. Harris, carpet manufacturer, Stourport; Mr. Heath and Mr. Griffiths, Bewdley; Mr. Lukin, manager of the Weldon Tin Works; Mr. H. B. Tymbs, Mr. John Hood, Mr. A. Wells, Mr. James Wall, and Mr. J. W. Lea, Worcester; Mr. E. Smith, gardener, Evesham; &c. Mr.