The celebrated Junius alone kept up the flame of opposition with any show of parts; but having at this time satirized the King, even for his private virtues, it did but throw discredit on the author. Almon, the printer, was now tried for selling Junius’s former Address to his Majesty; and though he pleaded that the copies had been left at his shop and sold by his servant without his knowledge, the judge told the jury that a master was answerable for his servant; and they found Almon guilty.[101] This man was reckoned to have made a fortune of 10,000_l._ by publishing and selling libels. Woodfall, the original publisher of Junius’s Address, escaped better, being found _guilty of printing and publishing only_, though Lord Mansfield, who had likewise tried Almon, endeavoured by the most arbitrary constructions to mislead the jury, telling them that they had nothing to do with the _intention_, nor with the other words in the indictment, as _malicious_, _seditious_, &c., which he affirmed were only words of course; and which yet would have fallen heavily on the accused, had the jury paid regard to such abominable doctrine. The despotic and Jesuitic Judge went farther: he said, the business of the jury was to consider whether the blanks were properly filled up; as to the contents of the paper, whether true or false, they were totally immaterial--no wonder juries were favourable to libellers, when the option lay between encouraging abuse, and torturing law to severe tyranny! It did the jury honour that they preferred liberty to the voice of the inquisitor. Not content with open violations of justice, he carried the jurors home with him--though without effect.[102] Nor was his management of the two trials less wicked. He had selected Almon for the first sacrifice, though only a second publisher, before Woodfall, the original editor, because Woodfall being an inhabitant of the City of London, the Chief Justice had little hope of influencing a Middlesex jury: but Almon residing in Westminster, was more likely to be convicted: in which case it would be more difficult for the jury to absolve the original publisher, when even his copyist had been condemned--a shameful wile, for which the Attorney-General could not help making an apology! Almon tried to obtain a revision of his sentence, but Lord Mansfield put it off, till he should see the event of Woodfall’s trial. When the latter’s sentence was pronounced, this second Jefferies insisted that the jury should swear they thought him guilty of _publishing only_,--an inquisition unprecedented, unheard of! To impose new oaths on a jury! and after sentence! and after they had been dissolved! What criminal could be more heinously guilty than such a judge? Miller and Baldwin, two other printers, were brought in not guilty for the very same crime for which Almon was condemned--probably from the indignation conceived at Lord Mansfield’s illegal conduct.