The laws were administered by inspectors of bookselling and enforced by the police and the civil courts. The laws were very severe. They applied primarily to the printer and bookseller, probably because he was an easier person to get at than the author and much more likely to be financially responsible. The printer was obliged to make public the name of the author and printer, the place of manufacture, and the place of sale of every book which he printed. A printer might be prosecuted if an authorized book turned out to be objectionable. This was a particularly unjust law because the printer was obliged to take the chance that, after the book had been duly censored and approved by authority, some censor, perhaps not the one who had originally approved it, might find something in it which he considered objectionable. The penalties for infraction of the press laws were very severe. They consisted of the burning of books, confiscation of books, fines, flogging, imprisonment, banishment, and even burning alive. From 1660 to 1756, 869 authors, printers, and booksellers were sent to the Bastille. At least one-third of these were printers. The press laws in France were more severe than almost anywhere else in Europe. In practical operation they favored foreign printers at the expense of the French. Naturally the result of all of this regulation was that Frenchmen did not print, and the market was supplied from abroad. If the laws had been strictly enforced printing would apparently have been driven out of France. There were, however, certain mitigations. In the first place certain things were exempt from the operations of the press laws, such as legal documents, police papers, documents bearing the signatures of advocates, and small publications of two leaves or less for the spread of news or for other purposes. This particular exemption was always the cause of a good deal of question and a good deal of abuse. Again, these laws were largely held in reserve, that is to say, they made possible the punishment of offending printers, but in many cases the offender was not proceeded against unless someone complained. Again, the judges used large discretion in dealing with cases of infraction of the press laws. In many cases licenses were issued in a very informal way, so that official responsibility was not involved; and sometimes a clandestine permission was given, the printer being assured that although his book could not be approved no action would be taken against him if he published it. False statements as to place of printing were used as a means of avoiding responsibility, sometimes apparently with the connivance of the authorities. The personal influence of the Chancellor was very great in these cases, and it was entirely possible for him to protect authors or writers if he chose to do so.