[90] NOTE.--The following remarks, contained in the report of the Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of rates, are worth reading-- “The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical revision of rates and fares. “Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former, its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the question--On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom? If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority. Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the principal railway companies would not object. “This leads to the further consideration of the important question, whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so, any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.” [91] See the language of Lord Penzance in _Pryce_ v. _Monmouthshire Canal and Railway Company_, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.