Rec. Strickland, Walter B, O^1, O^2, L
  Strickland, Sir William O^1, O^2, L
  Rec. Sydenham, Col.  Wm. B, O^1, O^2, L
  *_Rec._ Temple, James
  *_Rec._ Temple, Peter
  Rec. Thompson, Col.  George R
  Rec. Thorpe, Serjeant Francis O^1, O^2[t]
  Trenchard, John O^1, O^2, R
  Trevor, Sir John O^1, O^2, R
  Vane, Sir Henry R
  Rec. Wallop, Robert O^1, O^2, R
  Walsingham, Sir Thomas
  * Walton, Col.  Valentine (Cromwell’s brother-in-law)
  *_Rec._ Wayte, Col.  Thomas
  Rec. Weaver, Edmund
  Rec. Wentworth, Sir Peter
  Rec. West, Edmund
  Rec. Weston.  Benjamin R
  Rec. White, Col.  William
  Whitlocke, Lord Commissioner O^1, O^2, L
  Widdrington, Sir Thomas O^1, O^2
  *_Rec._ Wogan, Thomas
  Rec. Wroth, Sir Thomas O^2, R
  Wylde, Chief Baron R[1]

[Footnote 1:  I may explain the manner in which the list has been prepared:—­(1) I have gone over the Journals of the House through the five months of its sittings—­Commons Journals, Vol.  VII. pp. 644-797—­and collected the names appearing in the lists of Committees.  This certifies actual or assumed attendance, more or less, and at one time or another. (2) I have compared the result with a list in Parl.  Hist., III. 1547-8.  It is much less complete than my own, giving only ninety-one names; but it helped me once or twice. (3) For the political antecedents of the members I have referred to Mr. Carlyle’s Revised List of the Long Parliament, appended to Vol.  II. of his Cromwell, and to the Lists of the Barebones Parliament, Oliver’s two Parliaments, and Richard’s Parliament in Vol.  III. of the Parl.  Hist.—­With all my care, I may have left errors.  Once or twice, where there are several persons of the same surname, I was doubtful as to the Christian name.  The Journals often omit that.—­I have seen, since writing the above, a folio fly-leaf, published in London in March 1660, giving what it calls “a perfect list of the Rumpers.”  It includes 121 names, and nearly corresponds with mine, but not quite—­containing one or two names not given in mine (e.g.  Sir Francis Russell), and omitting one or two I give.  Effectively, I believe my own list the more authentic.]

From this list it will be seen, in the first place, that, if Ludlow was correct in his estimate that there were 160 old Rumpers still alive, a good many of them did not now reappear in that capacity at Westminster.  It will be seen, farther, that nearly two-thirds of those who did re-appear were not original members of the Long Parliament, but Recruiters.  But this is not all.  While about one-third of the total