LONG, Lislebone (1613-59), of Stratton on the Fosse, Som.

The Somerset Longs were distantly related to the Wiltshire family of that name; this MP was a third cousin once removed of Walter Long* and Robert Long II*.36Vis. Som. 1623, 69-70; Burke Dorm. and Extinct Baronetcies, 320. By the early seventeenth century the Somerset branch was based at Stratton on the Fosse in the north east of the county.37Som. Protestation Returns, 232. Lislebone Long was born close by at Beckington in 1613. His unusual name derived from his mother’s family, the Lovibonds of Shorwell on the Isle of Wight. The new-born child was baptised at Beckington as ‘Loueveband’.38Beckington par. reg. However, by the time Long went up to Oxford in 1629 he had adopted the spelling ‘Leilebourne’; that was the form used when he was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn three years later.39Al. Ox.; LI Admiss. i. 219. When he married in 1641 he was ‘Lisbon’.40St Benet Paul’s Wharf, London par. reg. Although the name understandably confused many contemporaries, he was usually known in later years by variations on ‘Lislebone’.

In 1639, while still a student at Lincoln’s Inn, Long was sent by his kinsman Walter Long, to smooth things over with the clerk of the council, Edward Nicholas†, after Walter had been accused of insulting the sheriff of Wiltshire.41CSP Dom. 1639, p. 22. Despite being an eldest son, Long embarked on a professional legal career and, having been called to the bar by Lincoln’s Inn in 1640, he began practising as a barrister. That his early career coincided with the outbreak of the civil war may not have made much difference to Long’s professional prospects. While almost nothing is known about his legal practice, his later activities suggest that he was a skilled lawyer who was well regarded by his fellow barristers.

Long combined his career in London with his first steps in politics. In January 1644 he gave a deposition to support the complaints which had been raised by his younger brother, William Long, against the archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, in his capacity as chancellor of Oxford University.42CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 553. This was presumably made with the intention that their evidence could be used in any future trial of the archbishop, although, in the event, neither of the Long brothers was required to testify when Laud was finally tried later that year. During 1644 Long was named by Parliament as a commissioner for Somerset and as an assessment commissioner in that county.43A. and O. But these appointments meant little until the summer of 1645, when the parliamentarian armies regained control of Somerset. Long now joined the re-activated county committee, but probably aligned himself with the minority who disagreed with John Pyne* and his more radical allies. Following the issue of a writ that October for a new election at Wells to replace its disabled royalist MPs, Long stood as a candidate for the borough, where his seat at nearby Stratton on the Fosse had probably made him a familiar figure among the townsmen.44C231/6, p. 27. However, no election had been held by 27 January 1646, when the Commons criticised the sheriff, Sir John Horner*, for his lack of urgency in making the Somerset returns.45CJ iv. 420a. The Wells election had evidently taken place by 25 February, when Long took the Covenant in the House.46CJ iv. 454a. The return of Long and, more especially, Clement Walker* for Wells was a deliberate snub to Pyne.

From the spring of 1646 Long began making his mark at Westminster. On 15 May he was added to the Committee for Plundered Ministers* and acted the following day a reporter for the conference with the House of Lords about how to treat the king now that he had fled to join the Scots.47CJ iv. 545b, 547b. Significantly, Long’s second committee appointment, on 20 May, was to the committee on the bill to collect the arrears which had been owed to the abolished court of wards; soon Long chaired the committee and took the lead in piloting the bill through the Commons.48CJ iv. 551b; v. 46b, 54a; vi. 578b. That may also explain why he was included on the committee for delinquents’ debts several weeks later.49CJ iv. 603a. Similarly, he may well have been the principal promoter of the bill to discharge the fee farm rents owed by parliamentarian supporters. That bill was first considered by the Commons in July 1646. Care of this business was particularly referred to Long at that point and over the next two years he devoted much energy trying to keep his colleagues interested in it.50CJ iv. 620a; v. 337a, 590a; vi. 72a, 76b, 78b. This might indicate that, unlike most new MPs, Long had arrived in Parliament with specific proposals to promote, but, if so, his plans were limited to some decidedly dry and unglamorous topics.

As he twice obtained leave of absence – on 30 July 1646 and 5 March 1647 – it cannot be assumed that Long attended Parliament throughout these early years.51CJ iv. 629b; v. 107a. During the first of those absences, he returned to Somerset and, as a member of the county standing committee, he spent part of his time there helping to organise the prosecution against Sir John Stawell* which had been ordered by the Commons.52Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: Som. standing cttee. to John Preston, 22 Aug. 1646. However, he was present at Westminster on 14 June 1647, when, with the army advancing towards London, he was named to the committee to prepare a declaration to reassure the soldiers and to warn against attempts to intimidate them.53CJ v. 209b. A week later he was also included on the committee created to address the soldiers’ complaints about abuses in their pay.54CJ v. 253a. But what exactly Long did during the crisis of 26 July-6 August is not known and, in the absence of any evidence, it is more likely that he stayed at Westminster. He reappears in the records only on 15 October, when he was named to the committee on John Lilburne’s imprisonment, and he was soon resuming his efforts to get the Commons to accept the fee farms arrears bill.55CJ v. 334a, 337a. That in January 1648 he was named to the committee to help prepare the trials of several prominent royalists, including Stawell and Sir Lewis Dyve†, cannot have been a surprise. Stawell was perhaps the most prominent Somerset royalist and the previous autumn Long had been one of the Somerset justices of the peace who had been asked to prepare an indictment against Stawell by the assize judges, Henry Rolle† and John Godbold*, at Taunton.56CJ v. 437b; Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn,12. His view of the uprisings during the summer of 1648 seems to have been as robust as any at Westminster. On 8 June 1648 he and John Corbett* were asked to prepare legislation to disenfranchise those London apprentices who had threatened Parliament.57CJ v. 589b. He was later included on the parliamentary committees to investigate the risings in Kent (11 July) and Surrey (21 Aug.).58CJ v. 599b, 631b. His temporary departure from London in late August may have been because, at this time of continuing uncertainty in the provinces, he felt he could be of more use to Parliament in the south west.59CJ v. 677a; vi. 34b. He was back at Westminster by early November.60CJ vi. 72a, 76b, 78b.

Long was unaffected by the purge of the Commons on 6 December 1648. It was however an indication of his disquiet that, as teller in the division on 7 December, he attempted to block the moves for the purged House to consider the latest proposals from the army.61CJ vi. 95a. Later that month he was named to the committee to hear the petition from the widow of Thomas Rainborowe*.62CJ vi. 100b. The next day, 20 December, the Commons nominated Long and Nicholas Love* to fill the vacancies on the Committee for Sequestrations created by the promotion of Oliver St John* and Samuel Browne* to become judges. The Lords concurred three days later.63CJ vi. 101b, 103a; LJ x. 636b. On Christmas Day, when the Commons agreed to write to the Somerset county committee approving their plans to create an association to be commanded by Alexander Popham*, Long was asked to draft the letter.64CJ vi. 104a.

Such matters were overshadowed, however, by the question of what to do with the king. Significantly, Long had already been named to the committee which had been set up to decide how to proceed (23 Dec.).65CJ vi. 103a. But, since Long played no obvious role in the preparations for the trial of Charles I, was not named as a judge for the court of high commission and may well have stopped attending Parliament during this period, it is doubtful that he supported this solution. Moreover, misgivings about the regicide may well be why he waited until late February 1649 before entering his dissent to the vote of the previous 5 December; the House was informed of this only on 22 February.66CJ vi. 148b.

Even then Long may not have resumed his seat immediately. His presence at Westminster can be documented only from the middle of April 1649 and it was only later that year that he began to attend again with any regularity.67CJ vi. 185b, 186a, 186b, 190b, 196a, 211b, 217a, 218b, 219b, 241b, 301a, 307b, 317b, 325a, 326b, 330b. Yet, at the same time, he was willing to back the concept of a republic, for he probably supported the legislation to bind all adult men to that principle by requiring them to swear the Engagement.68CJ vi. 307b, 326b.

As a member of the Committee for Sequestrations, he was often named by the Rump to other committees dealing with such matters.69CJ vi. 330b, 565b; vii. 46b, 190b, 263a. Thus, in November 1650, when Parliament created a committee to consider the revenues being collected from sequestered lands, Long and Miles Corbett* were singled out as the two MPs who were to take particular care of this matter.70CJ vi. 499b. Two months later he headed the list of MPs appointed to consider claims arising from the sale of delinquents’ estates (24 Jan. 1651).71CJ vi. 528a. Long’s membership of the Committee for Sequestrations also added considerable weight to his decision to support John Ashe* in his acrimonious dispute with John Pyne* over the Somerset sequestration commission.72CCC 222, 226.

Although handled separately, the sale of the royal lands and of the contents of the royal palaces could be viewed as a parallel form of sequestration and Long played a part in supporting the passage of some of the relevant legislation.73CJ vi. 358b, 563b, 576b; vii. 237a, 239a, 245a. Meanwhile, he continued to press for a bill on the court of wards arrears and the committee on that subject was revived in May 1651.74CJ vi. 409a, 498a, 578b. He also retained his interest in the issue of the fee farm rents and the bill on the subject passed in March 1650 was probably drafted by him.75CJ vi. 301a, 348a. The subsequent Act, passed in February 1651, was probably also largely the work of Long and Roger Hill II*.76CJ vi. 525b, 527b. One theme that therefore is even more apparent in this period than previously is Long’s willingness to become involved in parliamentary matters concerning land. This recurs, whether it was when relieving creditors, settling the estates of private individuals, investigating proposals to drain the Lincolnshire fens or considering a bill for county registers.77CJ vi. 337a, 413b, 425a, 587a; vii. 73b, 253b. Perhaps he felt that such matters involved technical issues that might benefit from his specialised legal knowledge. His professional expertise was equally deployed on the committees to collect the statutes relevant to the work of justices of the peace, to review the poor laws and to decide what to do about the counties palatine.78CJ vi. 427b, 481a; vii. 241b. In January 1652 he was one of the MPs asked to cast their eyes over the text of the bill for a general pardon for possible legal problems.79CJ vii. 76b. The 1652 Act against highway robbery seems to have been another product of his drafting abilities.80CJ vii. 96b-97a. He probably also found time to help draft the instructions for the commissioners named in the Act for preaching the Gospel in Wales.81CJ vi. 352a, 370a. Often in such matters Long’s name is found in conjunction with that of Nicholas Lechmere*, another barrister and quite possibly a friend.

While Long was not summoned to attend the Nominated Parliament of 1653, he did briefly feature in its proceedings. On 23 July 1653 the council of state agreed that his name should be suggested to Parliament for appointment as one of the new admiralty judges. William Sydenham* reported this to the House later that day.82CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 45; CJ vii. 288b-289a. Long had previously given some attention to the Long Parliament’s debates on admiralty law and it is entirely possible that he had practised in the admiralty courts.83CJ vi. 185b, 186b. But when Parliament returned to this business six days later MPs rejected Long’s nomination by 53 votes to 38.84CJ vii. 292b.

Like many lawyers, Long saw the creation of the protectorate the following December as an opportune return towards a measure of constitutional normality and was willing to serve it. Keen to make use of his legal expertise, in January 1654 Oliver Cromwell* appointed Long and John Sadler* as his two masters of requests, to fulfil the traditional role of government officials to whom minor petitions could be presented despite the fact that the court itself was not revived.85Perfect Diurnall no. 215 (16-23 Jan. 1654), 3116 (E.223.23); Severall Proceedings of State Affairs no. 226 (19-26 Jan. 1654), 3569 (E.223.25). To mark their appointments, the benchers of Lincoln’s Inn promoted them to their ranks.86LI Black Bks. ii. 401. That the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, was promoted with them is a measure of the willingness of Long’s colleagues at Lincoln’s Inn to cultivate such useful figures in the new government. As one of the law officers, Long was now consulted occasionally by the protectoral council when they needed an expert legal opinions.87CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 123, 243, 323; 1655, p. 113.

Long’s court connections probably made him an even more attractive candidate at Wells in the 1654 elections. He seems to have encountered no opposition to his re-election as the city’s MP on 6 July 1654. Six days later he attended the poll for the county seats and signed the Somerset election indenture.88C219/44, pt. 2, unfol. Long’s court office may also have influenced his behaviour after Parliament assembled the following September. Although he would have been interested in its debates on legal questions anyway, he probably did so now in an semi-official capacity. The committees on the role of the judges at Salters’ Hall for prisoners (15 Sept.), on the bill to reform chancery (5 Oct.), on the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari (3 Nov.) and on the offices of sheriffs (4 Dec.) were all obvious appointments for a barrister who was also a master of requests.89CJ vii. 368a, 374a, 381b, 382a, 394b.

However, this Parliament – and Long’s role in it – was dominated by the debate on the constitutional bill intended to redefine the powers and position of the lord protector. Long was regularly named to many of the committees on this particularly controversial piece of legislation in which Cromwell had such a direct personal interest. Long was thus included on the committee for the enumeration of damnable heresies (12 Dec.), a matter arising from one of the bill’s most contentious clauses.90CJ vii. 399b. The following week he was among MPs asked to redraft parts of the bill and he probably then took the lead in drafting the new clause to repeal all contrary legislation.91CJ vii. 403a, 405a. That he was named to the committee on 13 January 1655 to consider the grant of customs revenue may well mean that he supported the increase in the revenues then granted to the protector.92CJ vii. 415b. But his precise stance is clearest in the division on 16 January 1655. He and John Cleypole I* were tellers for the minority who probably wanted the bill to be passed only if it had the lord protector’s consent.93CJ vii. 418b. It seems that Long was lining up with his fellow courtiers in an attempt to protect Cromwell’s existing prerogatives, as he probably had throughout the bill’s passage.

On 1 June 1655 William Steele* resigned as the recorder of London. The court of aldermen considered three names – Long, William Montagu* and John Archer* – before selecting Long as Steele’s replacement. He took the relevant oaths on 12 June.94LMA, COL/CA/01/01/067, ff. 347v, 348. Cynically, it was suggested that Long had been appointed ‘the better to carry on his master’s interest among the low spirited mayor, aldermen and common council’.95A Narrative of the late Parliament (1657), 10 (E.935.5). While the aldermen cannot have been unaware that Long’s contacts at Whitehall might prove useful, his qualifications for the job were also not in doubt. The recorder’s primary duty was to act as a judge at the Middlesex sessions at the Old Bailey, usually as the senior justice present. As well as providing legal advice to the corporation of London, Long continued to give counsel from time to time to the protectoral council, often because there was a particular London interest in the matter in question.96CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 30, 41, 62, 94-5, 99; 1656-7, pp. 79, 239, 290. For less obvious reasons, the council also began to call on him for advice on matters concerning the Channel Islands.97CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 19; 1657-8, p. 372. It was as recorder of London that Long was knighted, along with the lord mayor, Robert Tichborne*, by Cromwell on 15 December 1656.98Publick Intelligencer no. 62 (15-22 Dec. 1656), 1060 (E.500.9); Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 223.

As recorder, Long might have had some hopes of standing for one of City seats in the 1656 parliamentary elections. But it was now three decades since the London electors had last returned the City’s recorder and, if Long had any plans to stand there, they came to nothing. The Wells electors had already elected John Jenkins*, so Long stood instead for one of the Somerset county seats. On 20 August (which may well have been the same day as the London poll), he received 1,558 votes in the Somerset election, enough to gain him ninth place and one of the 11 county seats.99Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn,77.

Matters involving London and its corporation naturally enough now attracted Long’s particular attentions in Parliament. On 19 December 1656 the lord mayor, aldermen and common council presented a petition to Parliament asking that all London freemen should be liable to serve on the corporation. In what was doubtless an orchestrated move, Long made a ‘long speech’ backing this proposal.100Burton’s Diary, i. 176; CJ vii. 470b. Five days later he also arranged for the governors of the corporation of the London poor to present their petition.101Burton’s Diary, i. 223, 224, 226. On the other hand, a petition from one of the prisoners convicted at the Old Bailey directly questioned Long’s conduct as recorder. Long addressed the House on the subject on 21 February 1657, but the Commons agreed to grant a temporary reprieve to the prisoner, George Throckmorton, while they gathered more information.102CJ vii. 495b. Long’s interest in the bill to impose fines on new buildings around London is probably another example of him seeking to defend the interests of the City corporation (13 Feb. 1657).103CJ vii. 491a. Similarly, his procedural intervention during the debate on the naturalisation bill on 8 June 1657 may well have been intended to assist the proviso proposed by Sir Christopher Packe* that those named in the bill should still have to pay duties as strangers to the corporation of London.104Burton’s Diary, ii. 194.

Long continued to interest himself in a wide range of legal issues coming before Parliament. In its early weeks, he was probably actively involved in discussing the legislation to renounce Charles Stuart’s claim to the throne, the bill for the security of the lord protector’s person, the case of Portuguese prisoners held in custody at Exeter and the review of the status of all existing statutes.105CJ vii. 425a, 429a, 429b. As a teller in the division on 30 September, he helped get the sentence against convicted traitor Humfry Frodsham reduced to transportation to America.106CJ vii. 430b. In the weeks that followed he was named to committees on subjects as various as customary oaths (7 Oct.), abuses by attorneys (13 Oct.), probate of wills (27 Oct.), the law of wrecks (28 Oct.) and the bill for recovery of small debts (1 Nov.).107CJ vii. 435b, 438a, 446a, 446b, 449a, Later in the session he took an interest in the bills regarding indemnity (31 Mar. 1657), the regulation of the court of chancery (30 Apr.) and the confirmation of the liberties of the palatinate of Durham (23 May).108CJ vii. 516a, 528a, 538a. In some cases, his interest was probably rather more than merely cursory. He was one of only three MPs asked to prepare a bill to reform the laws on marriages now that there was no longer a single national church.109CJ vii. 428a. Interest in matrimonial law would have been a further reason why he later spoke in the debate on the Scot divorce case; Long argued that it would be unfair to pass the private bill to grant Edward Scot his divorce without first hearing from his wife.110Burton’s Diary, i. 206; CJ vii. 473a. He named for the second time to the committee on artificers’ wages on 16 October after it was asked to prepare a bill against persons who had no visible means of financial support. As Long alone was added on that occasion, we can be sure that he was the person who had proposed such a bill.111CJ vii. 435b, 439b. Finally, on 16 June 1657, at the very end of the first session, Long, Edmund Fowell* and Thomas Westlake* were given the task of drafting a clause confirming previous legislation passed by the Nominated Parliament to regulate the use of writs.112CJ vii. 558b.

Yet the legal sensitivities surrounding the case of James Naylor seem to have upset Long rather less than some of the other lawyers in Parliament. Nor are there many indications that the accusations of heresy against Naylor moved Long either to sympathy or enmity. He was included on the committee that first considered the case (31 Oct. 1656).113CJ vii. 448a But his subsequent comments on the subject can be read as mostly concerning parliamentary procedure. In the debate on 5 December 1656 he took the line that Naylor’s confession was not admissible as evidence as it had been made in committee. For it to be valid, Naylor would have to be called to the bar of the House and asked to repeat what he had said.114Burton’s Diary, i. 32. This looks rather more like procedural pedantry than any great desire to create a loophole for Naylor’s benefit. Later, after Cromwell queried Parliament’s decision to punish Naylor, Long defended MPs’ right to act as they had done.115Burton’s Diary, i. 255.

Not that Long completely ignored debates on other religious questions in this Parliament. On 4 October 1656 he was second-named to the committee to examine the bill to settle sequestered parsonages and vicarages.116CJ vii. 434a. Several weeks later, on 31 October, he headed the list of four MPs appointed to draft legislation to reverse a judgment in the court of exchequer against the trustees for impropriations.117CJ vii. 448a. Then, when this bill was introduced several months later, he was named to the committee on it (31 Mar.).118CJ vii. 515b. This can be read as evidence for Long’s support for financial assistance to a learned ministry. Yet Long was equally willing to recognise the rights of those who wished to opt out of a national church system. On 20 May, when Parliament considered the catechism bill, Sir Richard Lucy* proposed that, within limits, the children of those who were members of gathered congregations should not be required to be catechised. Long then partnered as a teller with Lucy in the division that secured a second reading for this proviso.119CJ vii. 535b-536a.

As his interventions in the Naylor case indicate, Long had developed confident and informed views on parliamentary procedure. In the debate on the excise bill on 8 January 1657, he challenged the claim by the attorney-general, Edmund Prideaux I*, that MPs could not speak against a point on which the House had already voted.120Burton’s Diary, i. 327-8. On 13 May he was named to the committee on the breach of privilege arising from the arrest of Edward Wareing*.121CJ vii. 534a. When the House debated the settlement of the Hele family lands on 6 June, Long advised his colleagues that it was unwise for Parliament to alter such settlements as this amounted to the interference in the affairs of private individuals.122Burton’s Diary, ii. 188-9. He also expressed interesting views on the subject of parliamentary elections. On 27 May 1657, when many MPs were convinced that Cromwell was about to dissolve this Parliament, William Sydenham proposed that they should consider the distribution of seats for the elections for the next one. Long agreed, although he added that the redistribution under the Instrument of Government had been ‘better than before’. He also thought that existing electoral law was ill-defined and so had led to ‘many strange elections’.123Burton’s Diary, ii. 139.

Long’s most significant role in the 1656 Parliament, however, was as a prominent supporter of the Humble Petition and Advice. As an officeholder under the protector, he probably had few doubts about transforming the lord protector into a king. As a lawyer, he presumably also saw the proposed settlement as a further step back towards constitutional normality. In March 1657, after the Remonstrance had first been presented to Parliament, he served on several of the committees examining specific clauses within it.124CJ vii. 505a, 508b. On 23 March he reported back to the House on the clause concerning parliamentary elections.125CJ vii. 509b-510a. He was listed as having voted to include the offer of the crown to Cromwell on 25 March.126Narrative of the late Parliament, 22. He was then part of the delegation sent to ask Cromwell when MPs could wait on him to present the completed Humble Petition.127CJ vii. 514a. Cromwell’s rejection of the Petition on 3 April must therefore have come as a major disappointment to Long. But he was then among MPs who set out to salvage as much from the wreckage as they could by attempting to persuade Cromwell to reconsider.128CJ vii. 520b-521b. When those efforts failed, Long emerged as a leading advocate of the revision of the Humble Petition to accommodate Cromwell’s scruples about the title of king while leaving its powers otherwise intact. He was included on the committee appointed on 19 May to consider the title of lord protector.129CJ vii. 535a. Three days later he reported back its recommendation, which presumably had his full support, that Cromwell should continue to hold the title of lord protector. In the subsequent division, Long and William Lister* acted as the tellers for those who agreed with this amendment.130CJ vii. 537b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 119. By accepting this, Parliament made the crucial concession which sacrificed the title of king in order to preserve the reality of its prerogatives. Long had done as much as anyone to save the Humble Petition.

When the Parliament reassembled at Westminster on 20 January 1658, Long was among those officials to whom the protectoral council had assigned the task of performing the formalities of swearing in the new MPs.131CJ vii. 578a. Many of those taking the oath of loyalty to the protector had been excluded from sitting two years earlier. The following day Long was named to the committee to consider the form of the oath to be taken by the new clerk of the Commons, John Smythe.132CJ vii. 579a. The day after that saw Long at his most active. Exhibiting again his expertise in matrimonial law, in the debate on the bill for the registration of marriages, he argued for a number of detailed improvements to the proposed text and was named to the committee to which it was then referred.133Burton’s Diary, ii. 337; CJ vii. 581a. Following his voicing of reservations about the bill against non-residence by college heads at Oxford and Cambridge, indicating that there were benefits to some of them living in London, he was included on the committee appointed to consider that bill.134Burton’s Diary, ii. 339; CJ vii. 581a. When the Commons moved on to the more contentious issue of how to respond to a message from the Other House and specifically whether they should object to the Other House’s description of itself as ‘the House of Lords’, Thomas Burton* recorded that Long’s comments were incisive.

If you do not think fit that they should be called a Lord’s House, he is not worthy to sit in this House who will not tell them with courage, that you think not fit to call them a Lord’s House.135Burton’s Diary, ii. 343.

Such views can only have enhanced Long’s reputation as a good House of Commons man. His one other known contribution to this short session was on 30 January, when he opposed the motion from Henry Hatsell* which sought to encourage more MPs to attend debates by limiting the sittings of the law courts in Westminster Hall, a rival attraction. Long, among lawyer MPs who had to juggle parliamentary duties with a legal practice, took this as a criticism of the judges and defended them as being already hard-pressed for time.136Burton’s Diary, ii. 395. Later that year, as a consistent supporter of the protectorate, he must have privately mourned Cromwell’s passing and he did so publicly, when, as one of the senior officers of the corporation of London, he walked in the protector’s funeral procession.137Burton’s Diary, ii. 525.

In 1659, having regained its second parliamentary seat, Wells once more elected Long as one of its two MPs. As before, the protectoral council then named him as a commissioner to administer the MPs’ oath.138CJ vii. 593a. His only committee appointment was to the committee of elections and privileges (28 Jan.).139CJ vii. 595a. But he was by no means idle. Over the first six weeks of this session he was as vocal as ever. In the debate on 9 February on the bill to confirm Richard Cromwell*’s title as lord protector, Long was among MPs who argued for its passage without including additional limitations.140Burton’s Diary, iii. 191. He also intervened on at least three occasions during the debates about the status of the Other House. In the most substantial of those interventions, on 22 February, he argued that any legislation on the subject ought to specify exactly what powers were being granted to the second chamber. He seems to have advocated particularly strongly an explicit statement that membership of the Other House was not hereditary.141Burton’s Diary, iii. 416-17; iv. 17, 53-4. On 7 March he spoke in favour of Philip Howard* and George Marwood*, the two pro-protectorate candidates, when the Commons debated the Malton election dispute.142Burton’s Diary, iv. 42, 43.

Long’s role in this Parliament seemed to be transformed by the events of 9 March 1659. When the Speaker, Chaloner Chute I*, informed the Commons that he was too ill to continue performing his duties, John Trevor* moved that Long be appointed as his temporary replacement. In opposing this, Sir Arthur Hesilrige* probably hinted at Trevor’s motivation when he argued that a Speaker must be someone in ‘no way influenced by the court’. Hesilrige instead suggested Richard Knightley*. Long showed the customary modesty, telling the House that, ‘I know no incapacity upon me to serve you as a Member, but many incapacities to serve you in that chair’ and seconded the nomination of Knightley.143Burton’s Diary, iv. 90-1. But the Commons proceeded to elect Long. In the circumstances, there was some diffidence about enacting the full ritual of dragging him to the Speaker’s chair, and so, with more decorum than usual, he was escorted to the chair by Sir Walter St John* and Francis Gerard*. Hesilrige, meanwhile, got the Commons to pass a motion making it clear that Long was to serve only in Chute’s absence.144CJ vii. 612a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 92.

With his extensive experience at Westminster and his quick, precise barrister’s intellect, Long had many of the qualities required to succeed in the often difficult role of Speaker. But his week as Chute’s substitute was not a complete success. Those MPs who had opposed his appointment probably tried to test his authority. On 11 March, during the debate on the presence of the Scottish MPs, the Commons spent an hour in a heated argument about whether to call for candles. Long eventually called for a single candle to be brought in and then, amid much opposition, put the question as to bringing in more. When Long then declared for the Yeas, Hesilrige objected that the Noes were in the majority. This forced a division which revealed (by 160 votes to 148) that Hesilrige had been right.145Burton’s Diary, iv. 138-9. With more time, Long would doubtless have settled into his new position. But on 14 March he informed the Commons that, due to ‘his great distemper and indisposition’, he wished to step down.146CJ vii. 613b. Two days later, on being told that he ‘continued still very weak’, the Commons accepted his resignation. Thomas Bampfylde* was then elected as acting Speaker in his place.147CJ vii. 613b-614a; Whitelocke, Diary, 508. Long died later that same day.148CCSP iv. 163; Ath. Ox. ii. Fasti, col. 454. On hearing the news, Bulstrode Whitelocke* recorded in his diary that Long had been ‘a very sober, discreet gentleman, a good lawyer’ and a ‘kind friend’.149Whitelocke, Diary, 509. The funeral took place at Stratton on the Fosse on 13 April.150Stratton on the Fosse par. reg. Long left no will and so the administration of his estate was granted to his widow, Frances, on 2 April 1659.151Brown, Abstracts of Som. Wills, iii. 125. He was survived by several of their children, including their eldest son, George.152Bates Harbin, MPs for the Co. of Som. 166. His descendants in the male line died out in 1735.153Manning, Lives of the Speakers, 338.