The range of expenditure which is thus permitted by law is, of course, considerable, and the records of election cases brought into the courts demonstrate that not infrequently in practice its limits are exceeded. None the less, the effect of the law has been undeniably to restrain the outpouring of money by candidates, to purify politics, and at the same time to enable men of moderate means to stand for election who otherwise would be at grave disadvantage as against their wealthier and more lavish competitors. It is of interest to observe that by reason of the non-participation of the state in electoral costs there fall upon candidates certain charges which are unknown in the United States and other countries. The bills submitted by the returning officer must be paid by the candidates within the constituency, and these bills cover the publishing of notices of the election, the preparing and supplying of nomination papers, the cost of dies, ballot-paper, polling-stations, and printing, the fees of clerks, and, finally, the travelling expenses and fee of the returning officer himself. The candidate's share of this outlay may be as small as L25, but it is likely to be from L200 to L300 and may rise to as much as L600.[137] [Footnote 137: On the adoption of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883 see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III., 31-33. The actual operation of the system established may be illustrated by citing a specific case. At the election of 1906 the maximum expenditure legally possible for Mr. Lloyd-George in his sparsely populated Carnarvon constituency was L470. His authorized agent, after the election, reported an outlay of L50 on agents, L27 on clerks and messengers, L189 on printing, postage, etc., L30 on public meetings, L25 on committee rooms, and L40 on miscellaneous matters--a total of L361. The candidate's personal expenditure amounted to L92, so that the total outlay of L462 fell short by a scant L8 of the sum that might legally have been laid out. Divided among the 3,221 votes that Mr. Lloyd-George received, his outlay per vote was 2s., 10d. At the same election Mr. Asquith's expenditure was L727; Mr. Winston Churchill's, L844; Mr. John Morley's, L479; Mr. Keir Hardie's, L623; Mr. James Bryce's, L480. In non-contested constituencies expenditures are small. In 1906 Mr. Redmond's was reported to be L25 and Mr. William O'Brien's, L20. In 1900 a total of 1,103 candidates for 670 seats