When answering this question it would be best to approach it by defining the terms in the question, in particular the term 'restoration'. 'Restoration' can be defined as the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition. In defining this, we know how to answer the question with more precise evidence and details. We can also write in the introduction that the question itself is quite ambiguous as the term 'restoration' suggests and 'action' but some historians, like T. Harris, have noted that the term should be interpreted to represent a process. We can now answer the question with more specifics, and we can also be mindful of the fact that some things occurred in an instant, like laws issued in 1661, but we are intending to assess Charles II's reign as a whole. In the introduction, a framework of the argument should also be given. There are several factors that can be looked at to see how far there was a restoration. They can be termed broadly under 'political', 'economic', 'religious', 'cultural', 'intellectual' and 'social'. In each area here there is specific evidence that can be employed to determine whether that individual factor experienced a 'restoration' under Charles II's reign or not. For example, in economic terms there was an immediate 'restoration' when Charles II ascended to the throne but the nominal results were relatively less significant as Charles II's reign went on. This is true when looking at the administrative economic institutions revived by Charles II: the Treasury and the Exchequer. Another key piece of evidence that can be used to illustrate an economic restoration is the Hearth Tax which, besides its method of taxation, carried out effectively the same function as taxes under Charles I like the 'Ship tax', suggesting a restoration in taxation. At the end of a paragraph like this, historian's statements can be employed to reinforce your statements and conclusions that you have made from the evidence that you have presented. In this case, we can say that L. K. J. Glassey, a historian who wrote about the politics, finance, and government of Charles II, stated that "finance reflected the least continuity" (referring to economic factors undergoing a 'restoration' in Charles II's reign). Therefore, perhaps after discussion of further evidence, it would be valid to conclude that economic factors can be appropriately termed as a 'restoration'.