The English criminal justice system was seen by Stephen as ‘generous, humane and high minded …, a great practical school of truth, morality, and compassion …, eminently favourable to individuals’. Institutional jingoism of this order greets the reader throughout Stephen's writings on the system, appearing quite as often in his earlier as in his maturer works. But this almost emotional enthusiasm was reserved for matters of general theory and principle; the substantially uncritical devotion certainly did not extend to the functioning realities of the institution. Rather, he was a persistent and trenchant critic of its many inadequacies for the greater part of his adult life. It was a dissatisfaction largely inspired by the ramshackle and diverse obscurity of the sources of law; by the antiquated and unscientific approach of the rules of evidence – the life blood of the trial process; and by the casual laissez-fairism surrounding the prosecutorial process. In Stephen's lengthy career as the system's self-appointed professional critic and reformer, these areas of concern manifested themselves most distinctly in his attempts at codification; in his reformulation of the general theory of evidence; and in his efforts to formalise the responsibility for prosecutions and to regularise the provision of legal representation of prisoners. Yet for such a heavy and sustained drain on his time and resources the immediate and concrete return was pitifully small.