Editing Court of Chancery (section)

=== Restoration ===
After the [[English Restoration]], those judges and officials sacked under Cromwell were reinstated, with little modern progression; as Kerly puts it, "unjust judges presided again, and rank maladministration invaded the offices". The situation was much improved, nonetheless, because many of the faults were down to the machinery of the court rather than the spirit, which [[Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon|Lord Clarendon]] soon rectified.<ref>Kerly (1890) p. 163</ref> Upon appointment as lord chancellor he immediately published a new issue of the Orders for the Regulation of the Practice of the Court of Chancery. This was based on the code set by the Cromwellian Commissioners, and limited the fees charged by the court and the amount of time they could take on a case.<ref>Kerly (1890) p. 164</ref>

An effect of the Civil War and resulting [[Commonwealth of England]], particularly the "liberal" values and feelings it stirred up, was the continuous modernisation and improvement of the common law courts, something that reduced the interference of the lord chancellor in common law matters, except in areas where they had wildly divergent principles and law.<ref name=kerlrev3/> Under [[Charles II of England|Charles II]], for the first time, there was a type of common law appeal where the nature of the evidence in the initial trial was taken into account, which reduced the need to go to the Court of Chancery.<ref name=kerlrev3>Kerly (1890) p. 166</ref> As a result, the nature of the Court of Chancery changed; rather than being a major corrective system for the common law, it became primarily concerned with the administration and protection of rights, as opposed to the common law courts, which were mainly concerned with the remedy and retribution of problems.<ref>Kerly (1890) p. 167</ref> This was further enforced by the [[Statute of Frauds]], which confirmed Chancery principles across the board, allowing people to receive the same treatment in the common law courts as they did in the Chancery.<ref>Kerly (1890) p. 171</ref>

A major reform to the Court happened soon after the restoration, with the introduction of a right of appeal to the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] from the Chancery. Before this there had been no records of appeals to the Lords, and a committee had concluded that there was no precedent to give the Lords jurisdiction over equity matters, except when problems and cases were sent directly to Parliament (as occasionally had been the case).<ref name=kerlrev4/> In 1660 the [[Convention Parliament (1689)|Convention Parliament]] claimed for itself the right of appellate jurisdiction over equity matters, and also the right of original jurisdiction to hear equity cases at [[Court of first instance|first instance]]. After disputes which lasted into the next Parliament, this second measure was dropped, but the right to hear equity appeals was confirmed.<ref name=kerlrev4>Kerly (1890) p. 168</ref> Horowitz writes that despite these changes, one of the academic certainties is that the problems which had dogged the court for the last two centuries persisted; ''Observations on the Dilatory and Expensive Proceedings in the Court of Chancery'', written in 1701, listed 25 different procedures, areas and situations which contributed to the problems of high fees and slow processes.<ref>Horowitz (1996) p. 26</ref>