Pride's Purge

Pride's Purge


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Thomas Pride was a colonel in the New Model Army. In December 1648 Pride's troops expelled from the House of Commons that MPs who favoured a negotiated settlement with Charles I. After what became known as Pride's Purge, the remaining MPs formed the Rump Parliament, which remained in session until 1653.


How LGBT Civil Servants Became Public Enemy No. 1 in the 1950s

During the 1950s, the State Department began to scrutinize public servants in its ranks, methodically scanning personnel files and interviewing suspected threats. The goal was to root out “immoral,” “scandalous” and �ngerous” government employees—people whose personal conduct put the entire nation at risk.

You might think the targets were suspected Communists�ter all, it was the height of the Red Scare and Cold War paranoia. But the State Department’s targets weren’t suspected Communists, and the sweep wasn’t run by Joseph McCarthy. Instead, LGBT people were in the crosshairs, accused of unfitness to serve. Condemned as “perverts” and bullied out of their jobs, they were systematically targeted for their sexual orientation.

The period𠅌onsidered as targeted and as widespread as the concurrent Red Scare—is now known as the Lavender Scare. Between the late 1940s and early 1960s, an unknown number of LGBT employees, likely in the thousands, were driven out of their jobs. Countless others were interrogated and bullied𠅊ll in an attempt to purge State of LGBT people.

Historian David K. Johnson gave the period a name in his book, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Johnson documents the use of the phrase “lavender lads” to refer to gay men. It was used by tabloids like Confidential and people like Senator Everett Dirksen, who was involved in public hearings related to the Senate purge, and it represented a wider societal tendency to mock and fear LGBT people.

At the time, homosexuality was a crime, and gay people had long hidden their sexualities. After World War II, as cities grew, underground gay cultures began to flourish. Despite the prevailing view of homosexuality as a mental illness and a sign of perversion or criminality, gay people started toਏind one another at underground bars and clubs. In the meantime, American culture became more sexually conservative even as more and more people became aware of homosexuality. This provoked a backlash, and cities began to more aggressively police sexual expression.

Section 8 of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 Executive Order #10450, “Security Requirements for Government Employment,” where it states that “sexual perversion” could be used as a fair reason to terminate someone’s job. At the time, homosexuality was considered a “sexual perversion”. (Credit: The National Archives)

So did the State Department. As the federal government began to persecute suspected Communists, gay people found themselves being targeted. At the time, many people equated Communism with homosexuality—people like Senator Joseph McCarthy, who linked what he considered to be the madness of Communists to the supposed mental imbalances of gay people.

“Many assumptions about Communists mirrored common beliefs about homosexuals,” notes National Archives archivist Judith Adkins. 𠇋oth were thought to be morally weak or psychologically disturbed, both were seen as godless, both purportedly undermined the traditional family, both were assumed to recruit, and both were shadowy figures with a secret subculture.”

In an attempt to lock down national security, the State Department began to actively seek out homosexual employees. As Congressional hearings about supposed homosexual activity within the department raged, the intelligence community began interviewing and pressuring for the resignations of suspected gay employees. Investigators looked for supposed signs of homosexuality, like being unmarried, and scrutinized employees’ and potential hires’ voices, mannerisms and dress for stereotypical markers that they might be gay.

“The official rationale wasn’t that homosexuals were Communists, but that they could be used by Communists,” Johnson told The University of Chicago in 2004. 𠇊 variation on the blackmail rationale…held that Communists promoted “sex perversion” among American youth as a way to weaken the country and clear the path for a Communist takeover.”

Gay rights picketers protesting outside of the White House, 1965. The second man in the line walking forward is gay rights activist Frank Kameny. (Credit: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images)

As the search for gay State Department employees intensified, so did the pressure. People were questioned, publicly humiliated and mocked by investigators. They were encouraged to denounce others and report suspected homosexuals. And in 1953, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450, which򠷯ined a laundry list of characteristics as security risks, including “sexual perversion.” This was interpreted as a ban on homosexual employees, and even more firings took place. Publicly humiliated and devastated by the loss of their income and their reputations, some even killed themselves.

Others, like Frank Kameny, fought back. Fired in 1957, he petitioned the Supreme Court for relief in recognition of his civil rights. They declined to take the case, so he picketed the White House. He fought to counter workplace discrimination for the rest of his life. Kameny wasn’t the only person galvanized by the public targeting of LGBT people—in 1969, the Stonewall Riots made gay rights a front-page issue, and the movement Kameny helped start and the Lavender Scare helped foment has flourished ever since.

The scare lasted until the 1960s, when investigations slowed. Only in the 1970s was the ban on gay intelligence community members relaxed, and it took until 1995 for another executive order, signed by President Bill Clinton, to explicitly state that the government may not discriminate based on sexual orientation when it comes to granting access to classified information. By then, countless gay people had been reminded for years that their participation in the State Department was not wanted𠅊nd that they would be treated as second-class citizens if they tried to serve their country.

Shortly before leaving office, Secretary of State John Kerry made a public apology on behalf of the State Department for the persecution of LGBT employees. “These actions were wrong then, just as they would be wrong today,” he said. The apology has since been removed from the State Department’s website𠅊 reminder that struggles over LGBT rights are anything but relics of the past.

Today, memories of the Lavender Scare are fading as the people it targeted grow older. The experiences of others, who never told their stories for fear of being kicked out of their jobs, too, will never be known. 


The best pictures of Pride’s Purge

Click on any image for details about licensing for commercial or personal use.

The best pictures of Pride’s Purge are dramatic images of Colonel Pride refusing entry to the House of 231 MPs who had supported Charles I and wanted to vote for his return as a more constitutional monarch.
The first picture shows Colonel Thomas Pride with his soldiery at the door.

The second picture shows a fracas at the entrance to the House.

The third picture shows General Ireton, who gave the command to Colonel Pride to exclude the Royalist MPs and thereby prevent them signing the Treaty of Newport.

Many more pictures of the English Civil War can be found at the Look and Learn picture library.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 4:08 pm and is filed under Best pictures, Historical articles, History, Politics, Religion, Royalty, War. You can follow any comments on this article through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


4 thoughts on &ldquo 6 December, 1648: Pride’s Purge &rdquo

A telling moment on this momentous day was when Col. John Birch poked his head outside to see what the fuss was about and was arrested, which suggests that he had arrived to work earlier than the soldiers of the morning purge itself. Do I get to keep this moment, or is it inaccurate?

Thanks for that – yes according to the pamphlet ‘The Parliament under the Power of the Sword’ both Col. Birch and Edward Stephens “were pulled out of the House of Commons, as they looked out the dore” – an early start for them!


As MPs prepare to vote over whether or not to accept the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May, we have the second post in the series on the tumultuous events of 1648-1649, as parliamentarians disputed with each other over a treaty which might end the civil wars. Dr Vivienne Larminie of the House of Commons 1640-1660 section moves on from 15 November to 6 December 1648, to look at a critical vote and a forcible change of direction…

Over the three weeks since the prime minister announced her Brexit deal, observers might have been forgiven for detecting unprecedented twists and turns in politics at Westminster. From day to day the balance has seemed to shift between rejection and acceptance of the proposed ‘divorce settlement’ with the EU, and between groups with radically different visions of the best way forward for a country where opinion is sharply divided. Yet while there are no mathematically exact historical parallels, work at the History of Parliament reveals many resonances with past political crises, and some where the stakes have been at least as high and the consequences arguably even more far-reaching.

On 6 December 1648, three weeks after Parliament had taken a critical step towards a peace treaty with Charles I that would finally end civil war, events took a dramatic turn. Soldiers from the New Model army, which in its council of officers embodied the most potent collective voice opposing the treaty and which among its ranks included some of the most radical spokesmen for the ‘will of the people’, arrived at Westminster and proceeded to purge the House of Commons of those MPs who had supported a deal with the king. Armed with a list of the offending Members compiled the previous night, the troops’ commanding officer, Colonel Thomas Pride, stood with Thomas Grey, Lord Grey of Groby, on the stairs to the House and – having identified them individually – excluded those who tried to enter, or let them through, according to that list. On the whole, the exercise was conducted with courtesy, but none the less, 45 MPs were arrested and four times as many were turned away or, intimidated by the military force, did not even attempt to gain access.

‘Pride’s Purge’ did not come out of the blue. It was not the first time that the army had intervened to alter the balance of power in Parliament: in August 1647 it had facilitated by its very presence in London the overturning of a coup by the Presbyterian party. In 1648 intervention was preceded by a series of key votes in the House and trenchant declarations from the army which were not readily reconcilable, and a confrontation of some sort looked likely. Despite the moderately encouraging signs which appeared from that quarter on 15 November, on the 20th Parliament had received A Remonstrance or Declaration of the Army (1648, BL E.474.3), which included among other demands, ‘that King Charles, as the capitall grand author of the late troubles, may be speedily brought to justice’, and that the Parliament then sitting might ‘have a speedy period put to it’. This was later bolstered by petitions from individual regiments, such as that which requested General Sir Thomas Fairfax that ‘justice might take place upon all, from the highest to the lowest, from the king to the meanest subject’ [The Declarations and Humble Representations of the Officers and Soldiers in Colonel Scroops, Colonel Sanders, Col. Wautons Regiment (1648), 2 (BL E.475.24)]

It was thus in a distinctly hostile context that MPs diverted to the Army Committee – one of the standing committees which prefigure modern parliamentary organisation – the accompanying demand for the satisfaction of arrears of army pay, and proceeded instead to debate the latest proposals sent to them from their commissioners with the imprisoned king on the Isle of Wight. A series of divisions over the next few days revealed considerable dissatisfaction with different clauses, but also majorities for persisting in the search for a settlement. Then on 1 December the army moved Charles from Carisbrooke Castle to Hurst Castle, on the mainland, and on the 2nd contingents of the army itself marched to London. Yet after a marathon sitting from the 4th to the 5th – as the darkest time of year approached MPs had again voted over whether candles should be brought in to allow discussion to be prolonged after nightfall – there was a result which defied such pressures. Despite attempts by MPs like John Lisle to close down the debate, on the 5th the Commons resolved ‘That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a Ground for the House to proceed upon, for the Settlement of the Peace of the Kingdom’. Leading supporters of the treaty like William Pierrepont and Sir John Evelyn were delegated to go that afternoon to sell the deal to Fairfax and his officers, and to confer with them ‘for the keeping and preserving a good Correspondence between the Parliament and the Army’ [Journal of the House of Commons vi. 93].

As has been seen, ‘good correspondence’ proved to be beyond reach. Pierrepont and Evelyn, who were no advocates of a ‘soft’ peace with the king and had negotiated very much for a settlement on their terms, had many friends in the army. They were not among those arrested by Pride on 6 December, and may still have been en route from army headquarters at St Albans. Their friend Nathaniel Fiennes was detained, but like the widely-respected Sir Benjamin Rudyard, another member of the treaty negotiating team, he was soon released. Out-and-out Presbyterians were not so lucky. In particular, William Prynne and Clement Walker, who had form in denouncing both their political opponents (Pierrepont and friends) and the army, were among a small number of unrepentant hard-liners still incarcerated in late January 1649 and beyond. Characteristically, they broadcast in print their fury at the treatment they had received – A Declaration and Protestation (1649, BL 669.f.13.72) – and went on to deliver diatribes against the political developments which ensued from the purge.

Meanwhile, however, among those in the army who promoted the purge of Parliament there was a conviction that it was a necessary step towards a goal which was entirely justified before God – although even here it seems there were different degrees of certainty and confidence: not all who participated recorded their motives and reasoning. Colonel Edmund Ludlowe, who had been visible as a teller marshalling opposition to the treaty, set down in his memoirs many years later that

‘I was so well satisfyed in the justice and necessity of [the purge] (looking upon a good cause and a good sword to be a good authority), that, as I had (long before it was put in execution) earnestly desired and prayed the Lord would open a way and fit instrument for it’.

He could not, he explained, see

‘any other way to appease the wrath of God towards the nation for the blood that had bin shedd during the warrs, nor to settle the peace of the nation for the future, but by bringing of the King to justice, and no other way to effect that in so regular a way as by excluding those members of parlament who, being by some temptation or other drawne off to the King, obstructed the same’ [Edmund Ludlow, A Voyce from the Watch Tower, ed. A.B. Worden (1978), 143].

The path to justice will be the subject of the next blog in this series, due on 8 January.

  • David Underdown, Pride’s Purge (1971)
  • Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (1977)
  • Many contemporary publications relating to events surrounding the purge – both pamphlets and newspapers – are available via the subscription resource Early English Books Online.

Biographies of Sir John Evelyn, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Thomas Grey, Lord Grey of Groby, Nathaniel Fiennes, John Lisle, Edmund Ludlowe, William Pierrepont, Thomas Pride, William Prynne, Sir Benjamin Rudyard and Clement Walker are currently being prepared for publication by the House of Commons 1640-1660 section.


Parties, Parliament and Pride's Purge: David Underdown as Political Historian

This piece reassesses the work of the late David Underdown, one of the most important historians of the early modern period of the last 50 years. In particular, it concentrates upon his work on political history, with specific reference to what is probably his most important book, Pride's Purge (1971). This book has had a profound effect on the historiography of the civil wars, and the aim of this article is not to question its overall narrative relating to the Independent faction, to the events surrounding the trial of Charles I, and to the broader Puritan revolution, but rather to assess Underdown's approach and methodology, and his treatment of sources. It discusses and critiques his prosopographical methodology, while at the same time arguing that scholars still have much to learn from the way in which Underdown analysed parliament and high politics, from the way in which he connected local and national aspects of the revolution and the disciplines of social and political history, and from his willingness to adopt a creative approach to the use of contemporary pamphlets and newspapers.


Related Research Articles

The Long Parliament was an English Parliament which lasted from 1640 until 1660. It followed the fiasco of the Short Parliament, which had convened for only three weeks during the spring of 1640 after an 11-year parliamentary absence. In September 1640, King Charles I issued writs summoning a parliament to convene on 3 November 1640. He intended it to pass financial bills, a step made necessary by the costs of the Bishops' Wars in Scotland. The Long Parliament received its name from the fact that, by Act of Parliament, it stipulated it could be dissolved only with agreement of the members and, those members did not agree to its dissolution until 16 March 1660, after the English Civil War and near the close of the Interregnum.

Denzil Holles, 1st Baron Holles PC was an English statesman, best remembered as one of the Five Members whose attempted arrest by Charles I in January 1642 sparked the First English Civil War.

Major General John Lambert, also spelt 'Lambart', September 1619 to March 1684 was an English Parliamentarian general and politician. Widely regarded as one of the most talented soldiers of the period, he fought throughout the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and was largely responsible for victory in the 1650 to 1651 Scottish campaign.

The Rump Parliament was the English Parliament after Colonel Thomas Pride purged the Long Parliament, on 6 December 1648, of those members hostile to the Grandees' intention to try King Charles I for high treason.

Colonel Sir Thomas Pride was a Parliamentarian commander during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, best known as one of the regicides of King Charles I and as the instigator of Pride's Purge.

Sir Hardress Waller, was an English Protestant who settled in Ireland and fought for Parliament in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. A leading member of the radical element within the New Model Army, he signed the death warrant for the Execution of Charles I in 1649 after the Stuart Restoration in 1660, he was condemned to death as a regicide, a sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes known as the British Civil Wars, were an intertwined series of conflicts that took place between 1639 and 1653 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland – separate kingdoms which had the same king, Charles I. The wars were fought mainly over issues of governance and religion, and included rebellions, civil wars and invasions. The English Civil War has become the best-known of these conflicts. It ended with the English parliamentarian army defeating all other belligerents, the execution of the King, the abolition of the monarchy, and the founding of the Commonwealth of England a unitary republic which controlled the British Isles until 1660.

The 1648 Second English Civil War is one in a series of connected conflicts in the kingdoms of England, incorporating Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Known collectively as the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, others include the Irish Confederate Wars, the 1638 to 1640 Bishops' Wars, and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

Colonel Sir Edward Rossiter, 1 January 1618 to 9 January 1669, was an English landowner, soldier and politician from Lincolnshire. He fought for the Parliamentarians in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and was an MP at various times between 1646 and 1660.

In Welsh and English church history, Independents advocated local congregational control of religious and church matters, without any wider geographical hierarchy, either ecclesiastical or political. Independents reached particular prominence between 1642 and 1660, in the period of the English Civil War and of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, wherein the Parliamentary Army became the champion of Independent religious views against the Anglicanism or the Laudianism of Royalists and the Presbyterianism favoured by Parliament itself. The Independents advocated freedom of religion for non-Catholics.

The Army Council was a body established in 1647 to represent the views of all levels of the New Model Army. It originally consisted of senior commanders, like Sir Thomas Fairfax, and representatives elected by their regiments, known as Agitators.

"Oliver Cromwell" is a song recorded by Monty Python in 1980 but not released until 1989 where it featured on their compilation album Monty Python Sings. John Cleese, who wrote the lyric, debuted the song in the episode of the radio show I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again broadcast on 2 February 1969, when it was introduced as "The Ballad of Oliver Cromwell". It is sung to Frédéric Chopin's Heroic Polonaise, and documents the career of British statesman Oliver Cromwell, from his service as Member of Parliament (MP) for Huntingdon to his installation as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England. The lead vocals, often heavily multi-tracked, are performed by Cleese, with interjections by Eric Idle.

Colonel John Birch was an English soldier and politician, who fought for the Parliamentarian cause in the First English Civil War, and sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1646 and 1691.

Sir Michael Livesey, 1st Baronet, also spelt Livesay, 1614 to circa 1665, was a Puritan activist and Member of Parliament who served in the Parliamentarian army during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. He was one of the regicides who approved the Execution of Charles I in January 1649.

Major General Rowland Laugharne was a member of the Welsh gentry, and a prominent soldier during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, in which he fought on both sides.

Events from the year 1648 in England. The Second English Civil War begins.

Francis Lascelles (1612-1667), also spelt Lassels, was an English politician, soldier and businessman who fought for Parliament in the 1639-1652 Wars of the Three Kingdoms and was a Member of Parliament between 1645 and 1660.

Booth's Uprising or Booth's Rebellion, also known as the Cheshire Rising of 1659, was an unsuccessful attempt in August 1659 to restore Charles II of England. Centred on North West England and led by George Booth, it took place during the political turmoil that followed the resignation of Richard Cromwell as head of The Protectorate.

Thomas Birch was an English landowner, soldier and radical Puritan who fought for Parliament in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1649 and 1658.

The Battle of St Neots on 10 July 1648 was a skirmish during the Second English Civil War at St Neots in Cambridgeshire. A Royalist force led by the Earl of Holland and Colonel John Dalbier was defeated by 100 veteran troops from the New Model Army, commanded by Colonel Adrian Scrope.


Pride's Purge

“A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” Harry S. Connelly Jr. says in the video, according to the Times.

“Personal hotspots can get speeds of up to 60 Mb/s down, whereas hotel Wi-Fi can be as slow as 1.5 Mb/s,” Sesar said.

In our headlong quest for a legally perfect society, we don’t take the time to take stock of what‘s been created so far.

And when we had Pride, we put up signs and some people would take them down.

But such an approach works against the traditional pride in self-sufficiency espoused by many in the American middle class.

Liszt gazed at "his Hans," as he calls him, with the fondest pride, and seemed perfectly happy over his arrival.

E was an Esquire, with pride on his brow F was a Farmer, and followed the plough.

Thou fell spirit of pride, prejudice, ignorance, and mauvaise honte!

Man's enthusiasm in praise of a fellow mortal, is soon damped by the original sin of his nature—rebellious pride!

Ajoutez cecy, s'il vous plaist, la grande difficult qu'il y a de tirer d'eux les mots mesmes qu'ils ont.


The Purge

On Wednesday 6 December Colonel Pride’s Regiment of Foot took up position on the stairs leading to the House, while Nathaniel Rich’s Regiment of Horse provided backup. Pride himself stood at the top of the stairs. [1] As MPs arrived, he checked them against the list provided to him Lord Grey of Groby helped to identify those to be arrested and those to be prevented from entering. [2] The purge was not over in one day, and a military watch was kept on the entrance until 12 December. By then 45 members had been imprisoned of which 25 were released before Christmas. It is not known exactly how many were excluded as many, once they heard of the purge, voluntarily stayed away, either because they feared they would be arrested but more usually as a sign of protest. Pre-purge the number of members who were still eligible to sit in the house was 507 but 18 seats were vacant and a further 18 members had not sat for a long time which meant that there were 471 active members. After the purge just over 200 members sat in what would become known as the Rump Parliament. [3] [4] Of the 200, 86 absented themselves voluntarily, 83 were allowed back in Parliament after formally dissenting from the decision to accept the King's proposals, and 71 were supporters of the army from the outset (see List of MPs not excluded from the English parliament in 1648).

The imprisoned members were taken first to the Queen’s Court within the Palace of Westminster, and then to a nearby public house. There were three public houses next to the Palace in 1648, called Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell. The imprisoned members were taken to Hell where they spent the night. On the next day they were moved to two inns in the Strand. By 12 December the first of the imprisoned members was allowed home many more were released on 20 December. [3]

The Rump now had a majority that would establish a Republic. Any doubts the remaining members may have had over the wisdom of this course were suppressed by the presence of the Army in great numbers. On 4 January 1649 an Ordinance was passed to try the King for treason the House of Lords rejected it. The House of Commons then passed an ‘Act’ by itself for the same purpose, and the King was beheaded on 30 January. On 6 February the House of Lords was abolished the monarchy went the same way on 7 February, and a Council of State established on 14 February. Between the purge and the King's trial and execution only about 70 attended the Commons and attendance in the Lords rarely reached a dozen. [3]


Mistris Parliament

On December 6, 1648, the Army staged an armed coup on Parliament, removing 145 MPs unlikely to vote to indict Charles for high treason, mostly Presbyterians, leaving behind 50 MPs. What was left of the Long Parliament was nicknamed the Rump Parliament at the time, and the moniker has stuck.

The droll “rump” referred to the hindquarters of an animal: one of its contemporary meanings still describes a legislative body forcibly cleaned of undesirables.) The coup is known, alliteratively, as Pride’s Purge after Colonel Thomas Pride, the official in charge of the purification. Since Cromwell wasn’t present at the purge, why might Andrew Gow have repainted history here?

In March of 1649, the Rump got shed of even more undesirables through An Act abolishing the House of Lords, an entity both “useless and dangerous.”

Praise-God Barebone Preaching in 1641

From July 4 to December 12, 1653, the short-lived Barebone’s Parliament (officially, The Nominated Assembly, also known as Parliament of Saints) was an attempt to form a stable and godly governing body founded on the notion of liberty of conscience. Under military rule, this was closest England got to true constitutional reform.

Embraced by our visionary anorexic Anna Trapnel, this parliament was modeled after the Jewish Sanhedrin (abolished 425 C.E.), which gave legal and religious say-so to an supreme assembly and promoted a a system of democratic civil authority. Begun in “an atmosphere of optimism and euphoria,” says the British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate website, the Barebone’s “passed twenty-six ordinances dealing with a wide range of administrative, financial and social matters. These included the requirement that all marriages be performed not by the clergy but by a Justice of the Peace the compulsory civil registration of births, marriages and deaths within each parish greater protection for lunatics and their estates, and provision for the relief of impoverished debtors and prisoners.”

How did the Assembly get its nickname? From a leather-seller and London representative with the delicious name of Praise-God Barebone. (Over at Mercurius Politicus, see Nick Pointz’s fascinating post–Recycled Woodcuts–about the life of this particular woodcut.)


Watch the video: Unit Constitutionalism to Prides Purge


Comments:

  1. Scand

    Credit, senks to the author

  2. Salisbury

    what an abstract mentality

  3. Corybantes

    I am sorry, that has interfered... I here recently. But this theme is very close to me. I can help with the answer.

  4. Tull

    Understood not all.

  5. Maulmaran

    even so

  6. Shakashicage

    Thank you for the information. I did not know this.



Write a message