Henry John Stephen Smith [q. v.], the mathematician, and (Sir) M. E. Grant Duff.
On 19 April 1855 he married Mary Richenda, daughter of the Rev. John William Cunningham [q. v.] Stephen had grown to great physical strength, though he cared little for any athletic exercise except walking, and in mind as in body showed much more strength than flexibility. He had accused himself of sluggishness, and, though he had been a steady worker, had not liked his studies enough to reconcile him to drudgery. From the time of his marriage, however, he became a most energetic worker. He had no connections at the bar when he joined the midland circuit. Business came slowly, though he was engaged in some conspicuous criminal cases. Meanwhile he found it desirable to earn money by journalism. Earlier attempts had brought little success, but at the end of 1855 he began to write for the ‘Saturday Review,’ then just started. There he found a thoroughly congenial employment in writing social and moral articles, and became very intimate with other contributors, especially George Stovin Venables and Thomas Collett Sandars [q. v.] While occupied with this and other literary work, he was appointed in 1858 secretary to the education commission of that year. The Rev. William Rogers, one of the commissioners, says (Reminiscences, 1888, pp. 129–56) that the success of the commission in ‘laying down the future lines of popular education’ was due more to their secretary than to any one else. The commission lasted till 1861. In August 1859 his improved position on circuit was shown by his appointment as recorder of Newark. He held the position, worth only 40l. a year, till 1869. In December 1861 he was employed as counsel for Dr. Rowland Williams [q. v.], charged in the court of arches with expressing heretical opinions in one of the ‘Essays and Reviews.’ His client was convicted upon two counts, but acquitted upon them on appeal to the privy council. On the appeal Williams defended himself. Stephen published his argument in 1862. The case was out of the regular way of business, and his employment was due to his sympathy with the general position of the ‘Broad-church party.’ He was a friend of Jowett and Dean Stanley, and at this time had much sympathy for their opinions. He wrote some articles in ‘Fraser’ upon theological controversies at this time, and sharply criticised Newman's ‘Grammar of Assent.’ Froude, who was the editor, was a very intimate friend, and Stephen, after Froude, was also one of the warmest friends of Carlyle. Carlyle's respect was afterwards shown by his appointment of Stephen as his executor. Stephen had also during this period (1860–1863) contributed many articles to the ‘Cornhill Magazine,’ under Thackeray's editorship. In 1863 Stephen returned to more professional work by publishing his ‘General View of the Criminal Law.’ He had been long greatly interested in the subject, and published the germ of his book in the ‘Cambridge Essays’ for 1857.
In 1865 the ‘Pall Mall Gazette’ was started, and Stephen was invited to become a contributor. For five years he was the chief writer. He wrote sometimes as many as six articles in a week, and in 1868 wrote two-thirds of the articles published. His services were highly valued by the editor, Mr. Frederick Greenwood, and he had a freer hand than elsewhere for the expression of his strongest convictions. Few journalists have succeeded in stamping a paper more distinctly with their personal characteristics, and the paper held a very high and independent position. He was at the same time writing a series of articles upon standard authors in the ‘Saturday Review.’ His labours were interrupted, though less often than he could have wished, by some important professional employment. His most conspicuous case was in 1867, when he was employed by the ‘Jamaica Committee’ to apply for the committal of Governor Eyre and other officers charged with excessive severity. He took silk in 1868. In 1869 he received the offer of succeeding Maine as legal member of council in India. He accepted it after some hesitation, caused by his reluctance to leave his family, and the danger to improving prospects at the bar.
Stephen was in India from December 1869 till April 1872. He spent the time in exceedingly hard work, interrupted only by a short illness. His chief duty was to carry on the work of codification, which had been taken up after the suppression of the mutiny. The penal code, drawn by Macaulay in 1834, had been finally enacted in 1860; and other measures had been passed during Maine's tenure of office (1862–9). Several measures of great importance were passed by Stephen, with the co-operation of his colleagues, that which was most exclusively his own being the Evidence Act (passed 12 March 1872). He had, however, to take the chief part in preparing many other acts, some of them of great complexity and involving delicate questions of policy. He had done in two years and a half work which might well have filled five, and thought that the process of codification had been pushed within measurable
