The criminal law has hardly received generous attention from the English legal historian, and parts of the subject, especially in the post-medieval period, still lurk in the gaslight of Stephen's era. There are signs of increasing interest among local and social historians, and more records of criminal sessions are consequently finding their way to the presses. A certain amount of law is to be learned from these records – even though that is not the main object of their publication – but there is a danger that the proliferation of record material will obscure the need to understand the thinking behind the law and practice of the criminal courts. The record, though invaluable for statistical purposes, tells us little or nothing about the interpretation of the terms used in the indictment, the nature of the evidence given, the rules of evidence (if any), the considerations which weighed with the jury, the influence of the judge, or the extent to which strict law might be softened by discretion. Such questions are notoriously difficult to answer, but until the answers are found there can be no history of English criminal law. Then again, the law reports in print have not afforded as much help in understanding the criminal law as they have in understanding the civil law. Reporters usually attended only in Westminster Hall, where the criminal fare was limited.