James Berry (_the Major-General_). 
  John Clerke (_Colonel_).
  Thomas Cooper (Colonel). 
  John Crewe.
  John Fiennes.
  William Goffe (the Major-General).
  Richard Ingoldsby (_Cousin’s son and Colonel_).
  John Jones (brother-in-law and Colonel).
  Philip Jones (_Councillor and Colonel_, and now “_Comptroller
      of our Household_").
  Richard Hampden (son of the great Hampden). 
  William Pierrepoint. 
  Alexander Popham.
  Francis Rous (_Councillor and Provost of Eton_).
  Philip Skippon (Councillor and Major-General).
  Walter Strickland (_Councillor_).
  Edmund Thomas.[1]

[Footnote 1:  In compiling the list I have used the enumerations in Parl.  Hist.  III. 1518-1519, Whitlocke, IV. 313-314, and Godwin.  IV. 469-471 (the last two not perfect):  also a Pamphlet of April 1659 called A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament.]

Such were “Oliver’s Peers or Lords,” remembered by that name now, and so called at the time, not because they were Peers or Lords in the old sense, but because they were to be members of that “Other House” which, by Article V. of the Petition and Advice, was to exercise some of the functions of the old House of Lords.  The selection was various enough, and probably as good as could be made; but there must have been great doubts as to the result.  Would those of the old English hereditary nobility whom it had been deemed politic to summon condescend to sit as fellow-peers with Hewson, once a shoemaker, Pride, once a brewer’s drayman, and Berry, once a clerk in some iron works?  What of Manchester, recollecting his deadly quarrel with Cromwell as long ago as 1644-5, and what of Say and Sele, who had remained sternly aloof from the Protectorate from the very first, the pronounced Oliverianism of two of his sons notwithstanding?  Then would Anti-Oliverian Commoners like Hasilrig and Gerrard, hating the Protector with their whole hearts, take it as a compliment to be removed from the Commons, where they could have some power in opposition, to a so-called Upper House where they would be lost in a mass of Oliverians?  Farther, of the Oliverians who would have willingly taken their seats and been useful, several of the most distinguished, such as Henry Cromwell, Monk, Lockhart, and Tomlinson, were at a distance, and could not appear immediately.  Finally, if, after all these deductions, a sufficient House should be brought together, it would be at the expense of a considerable weakening of the Government party in the Commons by the withdrawal of leading members thence, and this at a time when such weakening was most dangerous.  For, by the Petition and Advice, were not the Anti-Oliverians excluded from last session, to the number of ninety or more, to take their seats in the Commons now, without farther let or hindrance from the Protector?