The Oxford Movement aka Tractarianism/Ritualism/English Church Union

In this article I offer documented information about a significant and little known movement to re-unite the Vatican and the British nobility, spearheaded by none other than the Lords Halifax and Salisbury (Robert Gasoyne-Cecil). I also inform you about the secret society that was formed around this movement, that had strong influence on Cecil Rhodes and his formation of the secret society which became the Round Table, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations.

~ published March 1, 2018 ~


The “Vindicator” Librarian says –
Hi there! You are currently
In the Reading Library—>
Religious History section—>




The Devil


and the men behind the stories


The Oxford Movement

aka Tractarianism/Ritualism/English Church Union

By Virginia McClaughry

*Please also see The Oxford Movement vs. The Oxford Group and Frank Buchman: Is there a Relationship? which goes with this article.



a word about Robert Gascoyne-Cecil


I prefer to shelter myself in this matter behind the judgment of the greatest living master of natural science among us, Lord Kelvin, and to quote as my own concluding words the striking language with which he closed his address from this chair more than twenty years ago:

I have always felt,” he said, “that the hypothesis of natural selection does not contain the true theory of evolution, if evolution there has been in biology. . . .I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoological speculations. Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one everlasting Creator and Ruler.

Evolution. A retrospect. The revised address by Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Lord Salisbury, delivered before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1894.

Robert Gascoyne-Cecil at age 27


Brief summation of Cecil’s career –

  • 1866 served as Secretary of State for India in Lord Derby’s Conservative government
  • 1867 – resigns over the introduction of Benjamin Disraeli’s Reform Bill that extended voting rights (called suffrage) to working-class men.
  • 1868 upon the death of his father, Cecil was elevated to the House of Lords. Now he’s in power, now he begins.
  • 1874 Salisbury returned as Secretary of State for India
  • 1878 was appointed foreign secretary, and played a leading part in the Congress of Berlin, despite his doubts over Disraeli’s pro-Ottoman policy. Now he’s in charge of British intelligence. Served as Foreign Secretary from here on out between 1886 and 1887.
  • 1880 Salisbury now becomes the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, with Sir Stafford Northcote leading the party in the Commons.
  • June 1885 he became Prime Minister when the Liberal leader William Ewart Gladstone resigned, and held the office until January 1886. Now he’s in charge of all British government.
  • 1887-1895 When Gladstone came out in favour of Home Rule for Ireland, Salisbury opposed him and formed an alliance with the breakaway Liberal Unionists, winning the subsequent general election, and the next after that.
  • 1895 general election, Salisbury once again became Prime Minister, leading Britain to war against the Boers in Africa over the Cecil Rhodes diamond mines and revolt by the native Africans over the horrific working conditions.
  • 1900 led the Unionists to another electoral victory with him as Prime Minister again.
  • 1902 relinquishes the premiership to his nephew Arthur Balfour.
  • 1903 he dies.

Robert did not like democracy. Robert did not like his own enslaved-to-work people, let alone ones in other ‘commonwealth’ territories like India.

Robert had a miserable childhood, with few friends; he filled his time with reading. He was bullied unmercifully at the schools he attended, especially the slavemaster-in-training Eton College in 1840. He left in 1845 because of intense bullying.

This cemented his negative views on democracy, deciding that most people were cowardly and cruel, and that he would do everything he could to both undermine and restrain such ‘mobs’ of people. Only these were nobles that were doing this – NOT the average person. Admission to Eton was nobility only back then.

Apparently, it never seems to have occurred to Robert that this nastiness had been built into people by his own lineage and by that of their partners-in-crime, the Catholic church aka Christianity. Being ‘surprised’ at all about that is rather less than convincing, in my book.

After a two year break from all that bullying by ‘the mob’, in December 1847 he went to Christ Church, Oxford, where he received an honorary fourth class in mathematics conferred by nobleman’s privilege due to ill health.

There is a rather interesting and highly revealing ‘thing’ Cecil got involved in while at Oxford which I believe has been passed over by most historians without realizing the true significance of this event.

The Oxford movement or “Tractarianism”.

Cecil cites this as literally shaping his life. “An intoxicating force” he called it; he wrote of having had an intense religious experience through involvement with this group. While I don’t really believe many characterizations and interpretations of the whole ‘poor bullied Robert’ school of historians out there – this I know is true.

It is important to note that the later Oxford Group of Frank Buchman was what you might call an updated version of this. Buchman’s group was later known as the MRA or Moral Re-Armament, complete with all its skeezy pseudo-religious connections to Japanese, Chinese and Korean gangsters, ronins, and assorted criminals, sex-perverts and con-artists; as well as to British intelligence front group ‘cults’ like the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. (see separate post on this topic)


What is this granddaddy of Oxford religious-intelligence ‘youth groups’ – the Oxford Movement?

Well, hold onto your hats kids, because this one is a real doozy.

The Oxford Movement

What is it?


Wikipedia describes it like this –

The Oxford Movement was a movement of High Church members of the Church of England which eventually developed into Anglo-Catholicism. The movement, whose original devotees were mostly associated with the University of Oxford, argued for the reinstatement of some older Christian traditions of faith and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. They thought of Anglicanism as one of three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

First off. Could that be an any more boring description?

Let’s breathe a little life back into this ‘historical account’, starting with: Do you have any idea how significant that move was?

It signaled the approaching UNION of the two highest-level slavemaster factions – the British nobility and the Vatican. The re-alliance of the two against humanity.

The Holy Duo of the Nesilim – Kings and Priests rule the world.

The ‘world’ meaning thee and me.


– – –

The first of the followers of the Movement to become a diocesan bishop in England was Walter Kerr Hamilton, who was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury in 1854.

That, of course, is Cecil territory, their lands.

It appears the man that Cecil was influenced by while at Oxford was probably Dr. Liddon.

S. Paul’s, as it is to-day, is largely the work of those two men, Dr. Liddon and Dean Church. They were both men of the Oxford Movement. Dr. Liddon’s fame became world wide. In England successive Prime Ministers, Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone, were among his close friends, yet he remained the simple, holy, utterly unselfish man of God — the type of man he had learnt to be from the older Tractarians.

In Oxford his influence was, in his day, equal to that wielded by Mr. Newman. Men hung upon his words, and probably no teacher, not even Dr. Pusey himself, brought so many out “of darkness into light, from the power of Satan unto God.”

A Short History of the Oxford Movement by Sidney Leslie Ollard January 1, 1915; A. R. Mowbray

In 1870, when Cecil was made Chancellor of Oxford, he awarded yet another Oxford Movement/Tractarian, a Dr. Woodard, by creating him D.C.L.

…In 1848 Nathaniel Woodard published a famous pamphlet, A Plea for the Middle Classes, maintaining that they were neglected in the matter of education, and he followed it up by his Public Schools for the Middle Classes. Into his great scheme there is no need to enter, it is enough to say that he was emphatically a man of large designs with the power to realize them. In the south he began his work by opening, in 1848, a school at Shoreham.

…In all it is said that Dr. Woodard raised over half a million pounds for working out his great plan. His work did not pass without reward. He was made Canon of Manchester by Mr. Gladstone in 1870, and in the same year Lord Salisbury, at his installation as Chancellor at Oxford, created him D.C.L. His work aroused bitter opposition from the opponents of the Revival, but his courage and fair-mindedness triumphed over all obstacles. From the first he was linked with the Movement.

A Short History of the Oxford Movement by Sidney Leslie Ollard January 1, 1915; A. R. Mowbray


The other name that this movement gets referred to is Ritualism or Ritualists. By 1899, this is all STILL going on. By then, William Stead – Mr. Cecil Rhodes secret society man – even joins in and presents ‘opposing’ views. Stead had just been sort of booted off the Rhodes committee by Cecil’s lackey nobles, due to his stance against the Boer War and I think he allowed the following somewhat in retaliation.

He notes that the book I will be using (later on) about the Oxford Movement by Walsh is the source of the complaints by a Mr. Dalla Vecchia.

THE DANGERS OF RITUALISM. AN unexpected contribution to the controversy raised by Mr. Kensit appears in a recent number of the Westminster Review. Mr. Dalla Vecchia, the London correspondent of L’Opinione, has been moved by recent events to deliver his soul on the subject of “The Dangers of Ritualism.”

He takes as his text Mr. Walter Walsh’s “Secret History of the Oxford Movement,” which he declares is a formidable and irrefutable indictment of the Ritualistic party. Mr. Dalla V ecchia comes from a land where conspiracy is indigenous to the soil, but he maintains that for subtlety and deceitfulness the Ritualistic conspiracy exceeds any Jesuit plot that has ever been discovered. After quoting some strong sentences from Mr. Walsh’s book, Mr. Dalla Vecchia concludes by the following personal testimony :—

Once l used to laugh at hearing people talking as Mr. Walsh has done in the foregoing quotations. I do not laugh any more. My heart is too sad to allow me this pleasure. Sacerdotalism has wrought havoc in the heart and character of my countrymen. It has simply emasculated them. You will behold in them a gifted race politically free, morally greatly ruined by the false teachings and practices of the Church which made of them either infidels or slaves—two sorts of people unfit to properly – govern themselves in a constitutional way. The greatest blessing to men is liberty of conscience. This blessing Rome denies to her subjects. I am sure that this point only is more than sufficient to make free-born citizens to loathe any Romeward movement. Would-be slaves only look for bondage to Rome. Free people, for the preservation of their own liberties, must look elsewhere. Farther from Rome, farther from tyranny and persecution, and nearer to God, liberty, and morality. This is my personal testimony, and my reason for writing the present article.

The Review of Reviews: Volume 19; William Thomas Stead January 1, 1899


Truth Volume 3 1878; p. 456; letter from anonymous pen-name reader, probably Lebouchere (who created this periodical).

I was last Sunday at the Church in Munster-square, where incense, mixed chalice, wafer bread, and lighted candles, at morning service, and the ostentatious lifting up of the elements, marked the illegal character of the celebration. The preacher announced that at Easter every “Catholic” practice would be resorted to, whatever the law might determine, and invited all his hearers to attend and take the Eucharist “decently and in order,” which he plainly intimated was the “order” of Rome, not of England. Now for the painful part of the exhibition. In front, conspicuously seated on chairs, sat Lord Salisbury and Justice Coleridge, and in one of the side-seats Mr. Commissioner Kerr, and all communicated. That is to say, two Privy Councillors, and two Judges of the land, took part in an open and flagrant violation of the law, one of them being her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.—Your constant reader, “DECENCY.”

They called these additions ‘bells and smells’.

blogger synopsis

In Oxford in the 1830s a group of Anglican academics and clergymen became increasingly unhappy with the Church of England’s lack of appreciation for its pre-Reformation, medieval, Catholic heritage. One of their primary aims was to reintroduce elements of Catholic church ritual into Anglican services, reviving the use of incense, bells, Latin hymns, elaborate vestments and gilded altar furniture in ‘bells and smells’ fashion.

They also gave a supremacy, as in Catholicism, to the receiving of the Sacrament as a necessity in church services. Notable figureheads of this ‘Oxford Movement’ included John Henry Newman , Edward Bouverie Pusey and John Keble, after whom Keble College, the Oxford University college established in the Gothic Revival style in 1870, is named. From 1833 to 1841 they published a series of Tracts for the Times expounding their revivalist ideals, hence their being labelled ‘Tractarians’. It is worth noting that Tractarians were perceived as deeply nostalgic for the Middle Ages, a time when Catholicism was the ruling denomination and an age which produced religious buildings and objects of great beauty.

Just months after this Sunday service that had so many prominent people in attendance (like Lord Cecil) this John Henry Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879.

Now, Cecil’s son? (not sure of the relationship) Algernon Cecil does note his involvement with the Oxford movement, but in my opinion tries to donwplay it, explaining that Cecil’s writings of this period showed a sometimes ‘hostile independence” of thought regarding religious and ethical subjects. He doesn’t include, as far as I know, how Cecil referred to this as a bit more than just an ‘impact.

During Michaelmas term 1848 he was secretary and during Easter term 1849 treasurer of the Oxford Union. Subsequently in 1853 he was elected to a fellowship at All Souls College. Private memoranda show that he experienced the impact of the Oxford movement (e.g. ‘Every virtue is a narrow mountain ridge with a valley of sin on each side’), though in these notes on religious and ethical subjects (written c. 1853-4) he maintains throughout a critical and sometimes hostile independence of judgment.

– Dictionary of National Biography, 1912 supplement, Cecil, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-by Algernon Cecil

Contrary to this downplaying, is also the following –

Owing to his great reserve, his character, so lovable to those few who knew him well, remained to the end something of an enigma to his countrymen. They were sensible of a sort of massive wisdom in his presence, and they came to trust him completely, because he was so evidently indifferent to all the baser allurements of place and power. But they hardly realised either the large simplicity of his nature or the profundity of his religion. His life, it was said, had been ‘a consecrated one.‘ Each day at Hatfield was in fact begun in the chapel.

– Dictionary of National Biography, 1912 supplement, Cecil, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-by Algernon Cecil

Contrast that with the lack of connection made to just who Dr. Pusey was that Cecil specifically did a speech in tribute to in 1882 – he was an Oxford Movement man.

The very deep belief in the greatness of goodness, which appears in his tribute to Dr. Pusey (speech at Arlington Street, 17 Nov. 1882), and in his constant insistence upon the superiority of character over intellect, was fortified as well as balanced by a very keen perception of the impenetrable mystery of the universe.

– Dictionary of National Biography, 1912 supplement, Cecil, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-by Algernon Cecil

Perhaps even more revealing was Robert Cecil’s stance on Darwinism, very evident in his speech at Oxford on January 1, 1894.

A more striking but more obvious instance still is life—animal and vegetable life—the action of an unknown force on ordinary matter. What is the mysterious impulse which is able to strike across the ordinary laws of matter, and twist them for a moment from their path ?

…To counterfeit them—as has been done in numerous cases— does not enable us to do what the vital force alone can effect—to bring the organism itself into existence, and to cause it to run its appointed course of change. This is the un known force which continues to defy not only our imitation but our scrutiny.

…Darwin himself believed that all animals were descended from “at most four or five progenitors”— adding that “there was grandeur in the view that life had been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

…The deepest obscurity still hangs over the origin of the infinite variety of life. Two of the strongest objec tions to the Darwinian explanation appear still to retain all their force.

…There is the difficulty. We can not demonstrate the process of natural selection in detail; we cannot even, with more or less ease, imagine it. It is purely hypothetical. No man, so far as we know, has ever seen it at work.

…But in natural selection who is to supply the breeder’s place? Unless the crossing is properly arranged, the new breed will never come into being.

…Time was, not very long ago, when the belief in creative design was supreme.

…I quite accept the Professor’s dictum that if natural selection is rejected we have no resource but to fall back on the mediate or immediate agency of a principle of design. In Oxford, at least, he will not find that argument is conclusive, nor, I believe, among scientific men in this country generally, however imposing the names of some whom he may claim for that belief.

I prefer to shelter myself in this matter behind the judgment of the greatest living master of natural science among us, Lord Kelvin, and to quote as my own concluding words the striking language with which he closed his address from this chair more than twenty years ago:

“I have always felt,” he said, “that the hypothesis of natural selection does not contain the true theory of evolution, if evolution there has been in biology. . . .I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoological speculations. Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one everlasting Creator and Ruler.

Evolution. A retrospect. The revised address by Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Lord Salisbury, delivered before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1894.

– – –

This movement had a secret society associated with it, and is also referred to as Ritualism or the Ritualistic movement. The secret society began in 1855.

The reference for the quotes I’m using is: The Secret History of the Oxford Movement by Walter Walsh, 1898.

One of the most dangerous of these organizations is the Society of the Holy Cross, which was founded on February 28th, 1855. It began in a very small way, and gradually extended its borders, until it became the most powerful of all the secret organizations connected with the Ritualistic Movement. It began with only six members, of whom three subsequently joined the Church of Rome; its founder was the Rev. Joseph Newton Smith.

Four others named were:

  • Rev. A. Poole, Rector of Laindon Hills, Essex;
  • Rev. John Sidney Eoucher, now Rector of Gedding, Bury St. Edmunds (who withdrew in 1877);
  • the Rev. Canon Francis H. Murray, Rector of Chislehurst (who withdrew in 1877) 9 and
  • the Rev. G. Cosby White, now Vicar of Newland, Malvern Link.

The Cross is one of a peculiar pattern, made expressly for the Society, and is usually worn suspended on the breast, or from the watch chain, so that, as they walk along the streets, the brethren of the S. S. C. may be able to recognise one another as belonging to this secret Society, even though they may not know each other personally.

Father Lowder, who I believe is wearing the S.C.S cross (hard to tell precisely).

There are two classes of members, viz., “Brethren” and “Probationers.” Both are required to “wear openly the Society’s Cross,” when “practicable” (chapter ii., sec. 5). This, of course, may be done with safety, since the outside public are not able to identify it.

They had code words for greeting each other.

When two brethren meet the one shall salute the other with the words, ‘Pax tibi,’ to which the reply shall be, ‘Per Crucem;’” but; it is cautiously provided that these salutations shall not take place “in the company of strangers” (chapter ii., sec. 6).

The reason the Oxford Movement is referred to as “Tractiarianism” –

Now it is one of the proofs of the Jesuitical tactics adopted by the S. S. C. that although this Tract Committee has published a considerable number of books and tracts they never make known to the public the fact that they really emanate from the S. S. C. The most advanced Ritualistic doctrines are taught in these publications, which—I am happy to inform my readers—may henceforth be known to them by the statement on the title-page of each—” Edited by a Committee of Clergy.” Whenever this is read on the title-page of any book or tract, it may be safely translated into “Society of the Holy Cross Tract Committee.”

They put out books under that same disguise for children, with one in particular aimed at ages 6-7 to teach children to Confess.

It is now many years since the Society, under its Jesuitical disguise of “A Committee of Clergy,” issued a series of little
“Books for the Young.” No. I. of this series (a copy of the fourth thousand of which lies before me) was written for very little children, “six and a half or seven years old.” The following extracts from this book will show to my readers the fearful character of the Confessional teaching, imparted by the Society of the Holy Cross to very young children:—

“It is to the priest, and to the priest only, that a child must acknowledge his sins, if he desires that God should forgive him. Do you know why? It is because God, when on earth, gave to His priests, and to them alone, the Divine power of forgiving men their sins.”

Not to their parents, their friends, but ONLY to priests. Rather convenient and family-dividing that one.

They were very sneaky initially.

The reunion schemes of the Tractarians were at first kept a profound secret from all but the initiated. In this, as in so many other matters, the leaders cleverly practised their doctrine of “Reserve.” So well was the secret kept that for several years their proceedings were a great puzzle even to many Roman priests.

Page 70 shows Lord Salisbury, Robert Cecil, posturing in the House of Lords as if he is against this whole movement. He was not, as I will prove out here soon enough, therefore this is an excellent example of the kind of perfidy marking this man’s personal Dyarchy policy he had already begun instituting.

Note: Dyarchy was a policy of having his people be on both sides (or all sides) of an issue, including even in opposing political parties.

Early in 1873 a petition was presented [by S.C.S. members] to Convocation, signed by 483 Ritualistic priests, asking for Licensed Confessors in the Church of England. This petition naturally created a great sensation at the time, and led to many large anti-confessional meetings being held in London and the Provinces; to an important declaration on the subject by a Committee of the Upper House of Convocation for the Province of Canterbury; and a discussion in the House of Lords, on July 14th, in the course of which the Marquis of Salisbury denounced habitual confession.

“We know,” said his lordship, “that besides its being unfavourable to what we believe to be Christian truth, in its result it has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no other Institution to affect the character of mankind.”

Strong words for someone who basically backed this whole movement behind-the-scenes.

Then there’s the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament led by one of Cecil and Milner/Balfour’s protege’s C.L. Wood – Lord Halifax.

p. 213 –

At its secret Annual Conference, May 27th, 1880, the Hon. C. L. Wood (now Lord Halifax) read a paper, which was afterwards privately printed by the Confraternity, in which he asserted that:—

‘As the Cross sums up in one single act the atoning efficacy of the offering which Christ made throughout His whole life, and by his death upon the Cross, so the Eucharist, which perpetuates and applies that offering, enables us to offer up our whole souls and bodies in life and in death as an acceptable sacrifice to the Father of all. . . . Are we troubled about those who in the shadow of death are awaiting the Judgment? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches down to the prisoners of hope, and the dead as they are made to possess their old sins in the darkness of the grave, thank us as we offer for them the Sacrifice which restores to light and immortality.”

How very babblingly Catholic of him. Why do I get the feeling that Halifax is just playing along here? Hmm. Well, noted.


Jumping ahead for a moment, p. 335 tells us that Halifax had become President of the English Church Union in 1868.

No one can doubt, who has studied the operations of the English Church Union, that the prime mover in all its Corporate Reunion work has been its President, Lord Halifax. He was elected to that office, April 21st, 1868, on the resignation of the first President, the Hon. Colin Lindsay. …At that time the new President had not been called to the House of Lords, and was known as the Hon. Charles L. Wood. Since he became President of the English Church Union his whole heart and soul have been thrown into the work of healing the breach that took place between England and Rome in the sixteenth century, and he has done all that in him lay to assist that “levelling up” process within the Church of England which seems to have been thought necessary, as a preparation for the expected reconciliation.

Note: The English Church Union was formed as a society to defend those who were attacked.

p. 261 tells us that fourteen years later that Halifax is now openly declaring about corporate reunion with the Catholic Church, so he’s been involved in this for quite a while.

As far back as June 13th, 1882, at the annual meeting of the English Church Union, Lord Halifax, its President, declared that corporate reunion “is the crown and completion of that great Movement which has transformed the Church of England” and he has repeated the assertion many times since. But in order to the realization of such a reunion it is first of all necessary to make the Church of England look as much like the Church of Rome as possible.

I think it’s interesting that it is put as look like. As opposed to actually being like, perhaps?

“A Colonial Priest” of the Ritualistic party, writing to the Church Review, of September 21st, 1888, remarked:—

“It seems to me utterly premature to consider reunion, especially with the great Patriarchal See of the West [Rome] as within even distant probability, until the Anglican Communion as a whole is Catholicised. There lies our work . . . Therefore, let every one, while praying daily for reunion, remember that the surest way to accomplish it is by working towards the purification of our own branch of the Catholic Church.”

According to the opinion of some of these gentlemen the Reformed Church of England is not sufficiently respectable, at present, for the Pope to have her, even as a present.

She first needs “purification” from Protestantism. In a volume, with an Introductory Essay by Dr. Pusey, one of the writers very frankly declared that—”The first great hindrance that is before us arises from the Protestantism of England. Till this is removed, the Reunion of our Church, as the Church of England, with either the Greek, or Latin Churches, is absolutely hopeless.

p. 335 – a discussion of how they are not quite “Catholic” enough yet. Refers to Halifax as part of the ‘advanced section’ of the Ritualists.

It seems to have been generally accepted as a principle by the advanced section of the Ritualists that the Church of England is not in a sufficiently Catholic condition —at least in practice—to make her respectable enough to keep company with the truly holy and Catholic Church of Rome! Hence the necessity for “levelling up.” …The “levelling up” process, the work of preparing the way for Reunion with Rome has not yet, in the estimation of Lord Halifax, and some of his brethren on the Council of the English Church Union, been fully accomplished, even in the most advanced of Ritualistic Churches.

p. 345 – Lord Halifax ‘adopts’ an address, which was probably provided by him in the first place.

At the annual meeting of the Union, June 14th, 1888, an Address to the Conference was unanimously adopted, which concluded with the following paragraph :— “We would conclude with our most earnest prayers that the counsels of this great gathering of the Episcopate round the chair of St. Augustine may be so guided and inspired by God the Holy Ghost, as to quicken the life of the Church of England throughout all its branches, to win back those who have separated themselves from its fold, and, above all, to prepare the way for the restoration of visible unity between the Anglican Communion and the rest of the Western Church, and the Reunion of East and West, and to hasten the dawn of that blessed day of restored peace and goodwill among all Christian, people, when there shall be One Flock and One Shepherd.

Again, note the wording. VISIBLE unity. That never happened. But then, perhaps this is all a bit of a show? Since I know they made an alliance to have the two wars – World War I and II – this becomes rather interesting. Invisible unity versus visible?

There’s definitely something going on here about all this ‘uniting’ talk.

In moving the adoption of this Address, Lord Halifax said that Corporate Reunion was “that hope which is nearest and dearest” to the hearts of the members of the Union, and that they “longed for the time when the schisms and divisions which divide the West shall have been healed, when East and West shall be again one, and all shall be again united in the bonds of a visible unity as in the days of old.

This view continued well into the end of 1889, as evidenced by a speech by Rev. Roberts.

At a meeting of the Cheltenham Branch, December 17th, 1889, the Chairman, the Rev. G. Bayfield Roberts, who was subsequently selected to write the official History of the English Church Union, said that—”Unhappily, as a Protestant, Canon Bell looked to Reunion with Dissenters, and to an utter and irremediable breach with the Churches of the East and West. They, as Catholics, looked to Reunion with those Churches of the East and West which, in their fine ancient Patriarchates, possessed the historical Episcopate, to Reunion under the Primacy of him to whom the Fathers gave the Primacy . . . the Bishop of ‘old Rome.’

The author here refers to that as historically true, and that the idea of reunion was substantially the same as that to which Lord Halifax spoke about at the Annual Meeting [of the E. C. U. – English Church Union] in London, four years earlier in 1885:

Peace among yourselves, peace with our separated brethren at home, the restoration of visible unity with the members of the Church abroad, East and West alike, but, above all, with the great .Apostolic See of the West, which has done so much to guard the true faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and the reality of His life-giving Sacraments. These things surely should be our object—the object nearest our hearts.

p. 347

The speech which Mr. Roberts quoted above was referred to by Lord Halifax himself the year after it was delivered. At the
annual meeting of the E. C. U. in 1886, Lord Halifax said :—-

Is there a single instructed Christian who WOULD NOT PREFER Leo XIII TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL?”

Now why is Halifax bringing up Leo XIII. I mean, besides the fact that he was then Pope. Well, if you look at my post Focus On Pope Leo XIII you’ll notice a papal decree that is literally exactly along this line that Halifax had begun taking publicly.

Healing the rifts, uniting, letting bygones be bygones, all that kind of idea.

If, therefore, they have hitherto been dissensions, let them henceforth be gladly buried in oblivion. If rash or injurious acts have been committed, whoever may have been at fault, let mutual charity make amends, and let the past be redeemed by a special submission of all to the apostolic see.

IMMORTALE DEI, Pope Leo XIII, November 1, 1885


Notice the reminiscing going on here which sounds a lot like what Halifax and the English Church Union people were promoting.

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering.

IMMORTALE DEI, Pope Leo XIII, November 1, 1885


There is a LOT of attention on showing a re-uniting with and admonitions to respect ‘rulers’ by this pope. Rulers like in England, for example. Look at this also –

God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude.

…those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience

the authority of the rulers of a State, if it be a certain communication of divine power, will by that very reason immediately acquire a dignity greater than human…

Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty.


You’ll also note the attention on the people being obedient to these ‘rulers’ as well as being content with the life of literally a medieval slave who had practically nothing, like what Leo said here 10 years later –

be content with frugal living

– Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (of revolutionary change) May 15, 1891

Those two things combined are clearly a direct hit against the idea of equality and against any of the revolutions still consistently going on against these ‘rulers’ and the pope about their whole hierarchy of wealth system.

So, I’d hazard to guess that what we are looking at here with Halifax and Cecil etc. promoting these same basic ideas in England, is a concerted plan having gone into action.

Even their propaganda is matching!

p. 352 shows that Lord Halifax is still at this 10 years later in 1895, and by the way, Leo XIII is still pope at this time.

I must now hasten on to the time when, on February 14th, 1895, Lord Halifax delivered at Bristol his now notorious speech on Reunion with Rome. It was, I may here remark, delivered at a meeting of the Bristol branch of the E. C. U., and was subsequently printed and circulated by the Council, thus giving to it an official sanction and approval. It was a very long speech, and its delivery created a great deal of excitement and controversy in Church of England circles, its influence went further and extended to Rome, where the Pope himself greatly rejoiced at the welcome news which it contained. In this speech the President of the E. C. U. went further towards Rome than ever he went before. Even some of his own friends were surprised, though they did not repudiate his utterances.

…Lord Halifax, in his Bristol speech, “to speak plainly of the possibility, of the desirability of a union with Rome. Let us say boldly we desire peace with Rome with all our hearts”

…Soon after his Bristol speech, Lord Halifax went to Rome, where he had several interviews with the Pope, with a view to the success of his Reunion schemes. A verbatim report of his interviews would be interesting reading. In his speech at Bristol he had not, as I have said, asked Rome to give up one of her doctrines as a condition of her Reunion with England, not even the Papal Infallibility. But he did insist on the Pope’s recognition of the validity of Anglican Orders.

Sounds like a nice cover reason to have some nice private meetings on behalf of Cecil and talk about anything and everything, wouldn’t you say?

I believe that is exactly what actually happened there.

There went to Rome, a few months after Lord Halifax, two members of the English Church Union, whose travelling expenses were paid for by the Union. One of the party, the Rev. T. A. Lacey, a member of its Council, and also a member of the secret Society of the Holy Cross, wrote a document for the private use of the Roman Cardinals, to whom the question of the validity of Anglican Orders had been remitted for consideration. Probably Mr. Lacey never dreamt that such a document would ever see the light of day in England ; but, somehow or other, the Tablet got hold of a copy, and published it in full—translated from the original Latin—in its issue for November 7th, 1896. In this document Mr. Lacey made some very candid admissions, and some inaccurate assertions…

Now that it was exposed, as one might expect the Pope couldn’t be ‘seen’ to be bending or accepting this. Not in light of the outer aparency of a hard line on the ‘right’ way to do things he was currently taking. He actually went so far as to issue a Papal Bull about it.

p 357 –

The hopes of Lord Halifax and his followers were doomed to disappointment. Instead of recognizing the validity of Anglican Orders the Pope issued his now famous Bull declaring them to be, in his estimation, invalid. This Bull came as an unexpected thunderstorm in the Ritualistic camp.

The Romanizers had flattered, cringed to, and prostrated themselves before the Church of Rome in a state of abject humiliation, in the hope that the Pope would do them the honour of recognizing them as real sacrificing priests.

Instead, however, of being honoured by him, they were treated with the most unmitigated and well-deserved contempt. Instead of receiving a Papal blessing, they were spurned from the throne of the Vatican with a Papal kick.

For a time, in bitter rage and dissatisfaction, the Ritualists turned their faces towards the Eastern Church [as in Russia] and declared that they would go in for Union with that corrupt communion, and leave Rome to her fate.

I believe, as I’ve already said, that these people had already made a deal together well back in time here, and that this whole dismissal and condemnation thing as a big show. My guess is one given primarily for certain other Europeans, like say Germany, Russia, etc.

Halifax even plays his ’emotional’ part in all this when he gave his speech at the annual meeting of the English Church Union the following year, June 1st, 1897.

Lord Halifax bitterly complained that the present dominant authority in the Church of Rome in England threw “every obstacle in the way of any step that may be taken towards bringing about a better understanding, and the eventual Corporate Reunion of the Anglican Communion with the Roman Church.”

“We have indeed,” said his lordship, “honestly desired—we desire still—to see the relations which existed between St. Cyprian and the Church of Carthage on the one side, and St. Stephen and the Roman Church on the other, as insisted on in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, restored between Canterbury and Rome.”

On p. 362 the author delivers a quite accurate and scathing indictment against the effect of having Roman Catholicism rule in any country.

Unfortunately, he muddles it all up with trying to act like Protestantism, or ‘proper’ Christianity is why things are better in other countries which is completely FALSE. Not only that, there are a number of evidences that I could point to that show very similar things going on in the so-called enlightened Protestant countries.

The Ritualists cannot point to a single Roman Catholic country which is even on a level with, much less superior to, Protestant countries. On the contrary, Popery has dragged down Spain from her proud eminence, to be the most degraded and poverty- stricken nation in Europe, excepting Turkey. It has kept the South American republics and nations in a state of degradation, immorality, and ignorance deplorable to behold. Would any Englishman wish this Protestant country to become what the Papal States were under the temporal rule of Pope Pius IX?

…Rome has, during the past half century, put forth her claims to temporal power with a haughtiness which was never exceeded by a Hildebrand or an Innocent III. The throne itself would be at the mercy of the Pope.

I know some of my readers will smile at this, as the utterance of a visionary and an alarmist. Yet, for all this, Mr. Gladstone’s statement is literally true :—”Rome has refurbished, and paraded anew, every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused.

And so has England, so that’s a bit ludicrous. Strangely, and this is the point here, they are both doing exactly the same thing – trying to reassert their hegemony over the people of Earth.

Now here’s some interesting items, or rather black op tactics, that my regular readers might recognize their use of in modern times.

The late Rev. Thomas Francis Knox, of the Brompton Oratory, tells us, in a book published as recently as 1882, and compiled at the request of Cardinal Manning, that the following decree, passed at the Fourth Council of Lateran, is still a “part of the ordinary statute law of the Church”:— “If a temporal lord, after having been required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to Cleanse his land from heretical defilement, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other Bishops of the province. And if he shall through contempt fail to give satisfaction within a year, let this be signified to the Sovereign Pontiff, that he may thereupon declare his vassals absolved from allegiance to him and offer his land for seizure by Catholics that they may, after expelling the heretics, possess it by an incontestable title and keep it in the purity of the faith.”

In a volume of essays, edited by Cardinal Manning, a similar claim is put forward, in which we read that—”To depose Kings and Emperors is as much a right as to excommunicate individuals and to lay Kingdoms under an interdict. These are no derived or delegated rights but are of the essence of that Royal authority of Christ with which His Vicegerents on earth are vested.”

The author asks: How can National Independence exist when such a law as this is enforced? And then replies: The real ruler would be, not the nominal sovereign, but a foreign potentate called the Pope.

You mean exactly as Britain was now embarked on a plan to do with every country in the world?

Mr. Gladstone’s assertion on this point, supported as it was by abundant proofs, should not be forgotten.
“No one,” he wrote, “can now become her [Rome’s] convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another,” that is, the Pope.

Mr. Gladstone made this statement in 1874, and has never withdrawn it.

Ah. But they did, in a way.

In the fourth edition of the Catholic Dictionary, published in 1893, with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Vaughan, we are told what is the opinion on the subject of the Deposing Power now held by Roman theologians. It is stated that this power is at present fallen “into abeyance.”

See? A back-room deal was made.

The author tries to hold up that Catholics being against liberty of conscience is an important point. It is, and this is good documentation that he’s providing here. However…well. Have a look at this first.

…This is a fair warning, which might well set Ritualistic Reunionists thinking. It is confirmed by the testimony of a modern Jesuit Professor, whom Cardinal Newman termed “a great authority” and “one of the first theologians of the day,” the late Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, s.j., who had been a Professor at Maynooth College, and at St. Bruno’s College, North Wales. Professor O’Reilly declared that—The principle [of “liberty of conscience”] is one which is not, and never has been, and never will be, approved by the Church of Christ.

Another late Professor of Maynooth College, the Rev. T. Gilmartin, is equally strong in his denunciations of liberty of conscience.

The State,” he writes,can punish heresy as an evil in itself and as an offence against the Church, and the Church can require the assistance of the State in suppressing heresy, if its interference be deemed necessary for the good of society.

The BIG problem here that is completely omitted by this author (whether as unseen or simply unwanted to be known) is that the British slavemasters are exactly the same on this very point.

What did they do to Africans who felt they had the right to decide their own country’s fate? Killed them. What did they do to people in India who felt they had the right to think, speak, and live as they wanted? Killed them.

Nowadays, what happens if someone commits ‘heresy’ against British and Catholic hegemony and society controls? Excommunication, isolation, stripped of property, friends etc and deemed ‘ill’ mentally.

No difference between them whatsoever.


Now let’s examine a little more deeply where Robert Gascoyne Cecil fits into all this Catholic resurrecting business. Was it just a ‘college thing’ with him or did he continue to act in support of this whole New Catholicism New Britain union movement – as I call it.

The answer is yes, he did continue.

What I’m about to show you was not exactly easy to find. Not in any of the current supposed expert source out there. Nope. I had to get into some pretty old archives and literally piece this back together. But, since it’s obviously quite key to what a man who was going to control Britain into this new ’empire’ over the entire world was doing – where his head was at – it was worth the work.

Essentially, what we have here is another secret society, by the literal meaning of the words. One that was driving people like Cecil Rhodes, for example. He wasn’t existing in some kind of vacuum, he was a product of (a willing one) of men like Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. (See Confession of Faith and Round Table articles)

Let’s start with this. In what we just studied, keep in mind the supposed hullaballoo about reinstating confession back in 1873, where Cecil is quoted as saying:

…a discussion in the House of Lords, on July 14th, in the course of which the Marquis of Salisbury denounced habitual confession.

“We know,” said his lordship, “that besides its being unfavourable to what we believe to be Christian truth, in its result it has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no other Institution to affect the character of mankind.”

I pointed out that he was hedging his words and giving a false perspective of where he actually stood on things.

Alright, so check this out from just 4 years later.

Truth Volume 2, January 1, 1877

Brief word about this source –

Truth was a British periodical publication founded by the diplomat and Liberal politician Henry Labouchère.The first issue was published on 4 January 1877. Labouchère founded the periodical after he left a virtual rival publication, The World. Truth was known for its exposures of many kinds of frauds. Although Labouchère himself contributed to Truth, it was for the most part controlled by Horace Voules in its early days.

Truth’s slogan was Cultores Veritatis Fraudis Inimici – Cicero = Worshippers of Truth, Enemies of Fraud

Henry, although educated at slavemaster prep school Eton, was never allowed to really be one of ‘the guys’. He was pretty obsessed with ridiculing and exposing those who were keeping him out, not because he was sane or interested in enlightenment (he was virulently against people of the Jewish faith and the independence of women). However, he did tend to stick to have writings in his periodical stick to provable grounds, like when he was trying to expose Lord Salisbury. (which works to our advantage here)

Quote from August 1877 starting on page 151 –

Lord Salisbury = Robert Gascoyne-Cecil 3rd Marquess of Salisbury.

WILL any one explain what made the Marquis of Salisbury absent himself from the Cabinet Council on Thursday last, in order to preside over a meeting of the Middlesex magistrates? To the ordinary mind, it would have seemed, that, at such a serious crisis in the affairs of Europe, it would have been more becoming had the Secretary of State for India elected to join his colleagues, in Downing-street, instead of going to Clerkenwell to make a speech, which, happily, had no weight, in favour of a pro-confessionalist prison chaplain. But, then, the Marquis of Salisbury’s is not an ordinary mind; and the Middlesex magistrates appear to have a great deal of honest common sense.

This is not only about a Society of the Holy Cross member, it is about the Magistrates removing a man from the priesthood over that same book (and its Catholic confession practices) as put out by the Society called: “Priest in Absolution”. The same book that Cecil had previously made his statement about in 1873. Both items of which were well documented by Walsh in his 1898 book that we just went over.

Lord Salisbury (whose High Church proclivities are well known, and especially patent, we may remark, to the eyes of anybody who my visit his parish church at Hatfield and observe the decorations he has recently introduced) did his utmost, as chairman utmost, as chairman, to postpone this resolution, by suggesting, as he said, “doubts and difficulties.”

Quoting Cecil –

“All that had, at present, been established against Mr. Horsley was, that he belonged to a society which had some connection with a book which, so far as he remembered, was printed by some member of the Society.”

Lots of dismissive some s there.

Some connection, some member.

As if he doesn’t know…

Oh he knew. What this is making clear is that Robert Cecil is definitely involved with these people, enough to come out just to defend the guy.

The author offers his thoughts on why Cecil is acting like this –

We fear, if these words be rightly reported, that either the noble marquis never reads the reports of Convocation (wherein he must have seen that the Society of the Holy Cross formally refused to repudiate the “Priest in Absolution”), or that he has taken a leaf out of the manuals used by his Jesuitical friends, and permitted himself to speak as if he did not perfectly remember what, it is almost morally impossible, he should not have borne in mind with the utmost lucidity.

The bolded part was exactly what Cecil was doing. The Jesuits actually even had a name for how to lie in this fashion. It’s called sub-understanding.

Now here’s something even more strange and interesting about this Truth periodical guy and Robert Cecil.

Let’s take a little side trip to December 25, 1890, when a special Christmas addition of Truth was advertised, forming the 3rd part of a supposedly spoofy and humorous series on hypnotism begun that same month. It carried an article called: The Kaiser’s Dream, with a map of what the world would look like under the Kaiser.

Even today, there are people still promoting this map as some sort of proof of the power of hypnotism, or that of a magical prophecy, but the worst way this is used is as some sort of proof of a Jewish conspiracy to cause World War I.

When I saw that, I thought to my self: “Oh boy, there they go again.” (see my Illuminati article and this post tracking where, when and why, the illuminati/jews/freemasons conspiracy shows up) So I figured this Dream Map business bore a little further examination.

Now, I did find that Volume 28 of Truth, page 1215, does mention this Christmas issue available separately, but gives no indication of what is in it other than it deals with hypnotism (which had begun earlier in the month of December, as evidenced in this same volume).

What’s fascinating is that this entire supposed satire is actually an attack on Lord Salisbury – Robert Cecil.

I have been unable to find any actual copy of this issue of Truth, so far. Unfortunately, I will have to use what I consider to be a questionable source generally, but I was able to verify that at least when it came to talking about this special issue, this particular author did actually get that part right (about what was in the issue).

The source I refer to is Mapping the Millennium by Terry Boardman where the punchline within the story printed originally in Truth was described as:

After the “Kaiser’s Dream” hypnotism is completed, Truth then presented that it went to visit Lord Salisbury….who happens to be in discussions with the German Ambassador when she arrives. She discovers that Salisbury too has hypnotic powers, of which he says:

So by luck I developed that power
Which seems on the mystic to border
And it’s thanks to the force
I’ve derived from that source
that I’ve kept all my colleagues in order.

We are told that next there follows a list of all the Ministers of State claimed to be ‘hypnotized’ by Salisbury. Apart from these seemingly innocuous remarks, Truth gleans little else from the Prime Minister, so she goes to Marlborough House to meet the Prince of Wales, where she asks him if he has a ‘power hypnotic’. The Prince replies in a limerick:

‘For sometime past I have been under training, and at last
Am able, as you have already heard
To make folks do things utterly absurd.’

Nothing much else comes of this and thus the article (with its Kaiser ‘map’) ends.

We can verify that what Boardman is quoting from Kaiser’s Dream is apparently valid. I took this quote from Mapping the Millennium where the character Truth says to the hypnotist:

“I’d like to know the present thoughts of the young German Kaiser.’

I was able to verify that from a later (approx. 1927?) translation of a German reproduction of the original 1890 Kaiser’s Dream. This particular quote is on page 2 of it on the left side.

The other point of interest, perhaps, here is that this spoofy whatever-it-is Kaiser’s Dream keeps alleging special mind powers over others by Salisbury. If you understand that Salisbury and Lord Halifax (and others) had been pushing for a visible unity between the English and the Roman Catholic Church for over 10 years by the time of this article – as covered in detail in The Secret History of the Oxford Movement – and that they were both (Catholics and British nobility) propagandizing for almost exactly the same things at exactly the same time?

Well, then. Take a look at this which the Pope (Leo XIII) came out with only 4 months after Kaiser’s Dream.

She strives to influence the mind and the heart so that all may willingly yield themselves to be formed and guided by the commandments of God. It is precisely in this fundamental and momentous matter, on which everything depends that the Church possesses a power peculiarly her own. The instruments which she employs are given to her by Jesus Christ Himself for the very purpose of reaching the hearts of men, and derive their efficiency from God. They alone can reach the innermost heart and conscience, and bring men to act from a motive of duty, to control their passions and appetites, to love God and their fellow men with a love that is outstanding and of the highest degree and to break down courageously every barrier which blocks the way to virtue.

– Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (of revolutionary change) May 15, 1891

The instruments, huh?

What an odd way to put that at this particular juncture in time, especially what with all the forced interest in hypnotic influences having been stirred up by the equally Cecil-controlled Society of Psychical Research.

An interesting point to note here is that six years earlier, in 1884, on April 20, Pope Leo XIII published an encyclical Humanum genus. This one resurrected the whole demonic forces and Satan versus God aspect of the conspiracy theory – and brings up the “communists” and “socialists” again, but a really interesting addition is him expanding on the whole inequality idea, adding that NO ONE can use or even have any special abilities without God. You know, special abilities like telepathy, etc. etc. (See this article about their obsessions along those lines)

We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven…


I’d like to draw your attention to that it was just a couple years later that demented slavemaster Igor Emil Kraepelin comes up with that people who “have” these abilities – like telepathy – are MENTALLY ILL.


That can’t be a coincidence.

And…this is when the British start up the Society of Psychical Research to study people who supposedly have such abilities.

So, with his Rerum Novarum (of revolutionary change) in 1891, perhaps Pope Leo is trying to offset these kind of ‘you’re hypnotizing people’ attacks on Cecil and giving the impression then that any ‘power’ he has is ‘coming from God’?

That’d be about right.

Concerning these ‘instruments’ of special ‘power’ over the minds of men Leo spoke of, it just so happens that Jesuits (and the top Catholic leaders) are ALL about messing with people’s minds. That’s their real goal actually.

[The Jesuit Society] it seeks to rival the Divinity in its knowledge of the human heart.

From the contemplation of this pious work, we will turn to the famous Constitutions of the Society. The Institute of the Jesuits is contained in fifteen distinct works; the book of the Constitutions being the groundwork of the system: strongly, deeply built; with a knowledge of mental architecture unsurpassed, except in the Spiritual Exercises of the same cunning Builder. Subsequent Rules, Decrees, Canons, &c., are stated to have ‘resulted from the spirit of the Institute, which they are intended to uphold and enforce.

…the Society…requires more—it requires to know secret propensities, hidden inclinations…

(The Novitiate 1846; by former ‘novice’ Jesuit Andrew Steinmetz)

An interesting and intentional coincidence of this exact same obsession about controlling men’s minds and hearts shows up in another Catholic driven place – the grand-daddy of all conspiracy theories about the Bavarian Illuminati from the 1700’s. This was purely invented as an attack on Thomas Jefferson and people like him – a little known fact that I exposed recently.

You can see that Catholic obsession showing up directly in also Jesuit-trained Adam Weishaupt’s Order of the Illuminati.

To the grade Illuminated Minerval were admitted those Minervals who in the judgment of their superiors were worthy of advancement. Elaborate initiatory ceremonies fixed in the candidate’s mind the notions that the progressive purification of his life was to be expected as he worked his way upward in the order, and that the mastery of the art of directing men was to be his special pursuit as long as he remained in the new grade. To accomplish the latter, i. e., to become an expert psychologist and director of men’s consciences, he must observe and study constantly the actions, purposes, desires, faults, and virtues of the little group of Minervals who were placed under his personal direction and care. For his guidance in this difficult task a complicated mass of instructions was furnished him.

The study of man was to be made at once so minute, so comprehensive, and so complete that two immense advantages would result: first, the acquisition of the art of influencing favorably the wills of one’s fellows, thus making social reformation possible; and second, self-knowledge.

New England and the Bavarian Illuminati by Vernon Stauffer; 1918; p. 155, 157. Available at the internet archive and Google Books.

Notice what the priority of the Catholics was. Influencing others.

It should also be well noted that this whole Jesuit model was the basis on which the Cecil-Milner control cluster itself was constructed; it was the theory behind the Rhodes Scholarships; it was the theory behind The Round Table and the Royal Institute of International Affairs; it was the theory behind the efforts to control All Souls, New College, and Balliol and, through these three, to control Oxford University; and it was the theory behind all the anonymous writing Cecil and others did for The Times and other news outlets.

If you put that together with this whole English Church Union and Society of the Holy Cross secret society Catholic resurrection that Halifax and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil are driving? A particularly ugly picture starts to emerge here.

A reinstated alliance.

The author of Mapping the Millennium further expands on the attack on Salisbury:

It is worth pointing out, however, that precisely these two individuals-Salisbury and the Prince of Wales…. [Note: I edited out the usual conspiracy theory crap about Freemasons] ….were, “leaders of the cabal of powerful figures in the British establishment that carried out a long-term and ultimately successful plan to effect a diplomatic revolution that would lead to the encirclement of Germany and was aimed at precipitating the First World War.

I would say that more “worth pointing out” here, is the fact that the source he gives for the above idea is a 1965 book called: Mitteleuropa. Bilanz eines Jahrhunderts. Die Kommenden, Freiburg im Breisgau by Renate Reimeck – this is a woman who in 1941 became a member of the Nazi Party.

Not exactly what I would call a credible source.

However, since he raised the subject of Germany and the Nazi party, that’s actually where things take a decidedly weird twist here on the use of this Kaiser’s Dream map.

For that, you really should read my post: Debunking Yet Another False Conspiracy Theory – The ‘Kaiser’s Dream” Map and the Protocols of Zion

One of the other items of interest that Boardman alleged is that the Duke of Norfolk, a Catholic aristocrat and personal friend of Lord Salisbury and promoter of the Oxford Movement, was sent to Rome in 1887. Boardman says that he briefed the Pope on aspects of the “British view” of the coming 20th century. Supposedly Leo XIII was also asked to act as the broker of the Franco-Russian alliance.

Ok. Well, I’m sure that they did ‘brief’ the Pope on that as part of continuing efforts to bring their secret alliance into a more public one, but this whole visit was under the orders of Cecil (Salisbury) and Balfour, and one of its more well-known purposes was to try and get the Pope to suppress Ireland’s bid for independence from Britain.

We already know there’s a whole lot of dismissive – it doesn’t matter – posturings going on by the Brits publicly, but what this shows is that the Irish willingness to fight back on ALL fronts, including violence, was actually seriously scaring the Brits. I mention this because they were forced into having to make deals with the Pope, to form that secret re-alliance, because of all the revolutions going on around the world against their whole idea of that they deserve to rule, that other people are inferior and all that bullshit.

Who’s this Duke of Norfolk character then? Well, a bit of a patsy, he did whatever Cecil and crew wanted. When he died, Lord Curzon said about him, that he was a man “who was diffident about powers which were in excess of the ordinary“.

Quite accurate, once you unravel the cryptic nature of it.


Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk, KG, GCVO, VD, PC
(27 December 1847 – 11 February 1917)
Baron Maltravers until 1856
Earl of Arundel (Arundel Castle) and Surrey between 1856 and 1860

He was a Roman Catholic and a British Unionist politician. Unionist simply meant that he favored NOT letting Ireland have its independence. You can see how that actually aligned with the ‘Tories’ like Cecil, who also didn’t cotton to allowing their serfs – as they viewed them – to have independence.

It’s one thing to have the Americans, thousands of miles away be an independent nation, it’s another to have it right in your backyard. I’m sure that idea just scared the crap out of them, puffed up, false sense of superiority (aka arrogance) little cowards that most of them were. ‘Them’ meaning certain members of the British nobility.

The same year that Norfolk’s wife had died (in April 1887) of Bright’s Disease, is when he was sent on a mission by Salisbury to the Vatican.

Norfolk had an audience with the Pope and Cardinal Rampolla (Secretary of State – head of Vatican foreign intelligence) on 26 December 1887. He found that they had a ‘strong desire to have some mutual cooperation between civil & spiritual power’.*

*reference: Notes sent to Lord Salisbury by the 15th Duke of Norfolk, MSS ACA, unclassified correspondence, 1887-June 1888. The actual letters can be found in British Foreign State Papers January 1888 starting on page 851. (Google numbering) The Pope’s letter to Queen Victoria is on p. 858.

Noting the part I bolded, see? Now that’s the publicized meeting. They already had this deal tentatively struck from back around 1870 but they couldn’t let it be public, they had to look like they were working on a deal.

Most of the papers concerning all this are still ‘classified’.

Imagine that.

I’m surprised we haven’t been told that they were ‘lost in a fire’ or ‘pulped during the war’ or any number of bullshit excuses of why they keep hiding 150-year-old documents.

Anyway, as mentioned previously, they were also trying to get the Pope to suppress the Irish revolutionists.

The Government used several channels to transmit information to the Vatican. One of their most valuable agents was Salisbury’s friend the Duke of Norfolk, whose connections in the Catholic hierarchy and ‘sound’ views on the Union eminently qualified him to act as a private ambassador to Rome. In December, 1887, he was appointed to lead a delegation of English Catholics to Rome….With him went Captain Ross, a prominent Catholic Unionist who performed most of the brain-work for the mission Soon after his arrival, Norfolk gave the Pope a personal report on the agitation in Ireland, as Balfour had charged him in London. …the Duke informed Salisbury that the Holy See admitted priestly excesses in Ireland, realized the necessity of reducing this evil, but hesitated to do so publicly. (Norfolk to Salisbury, 29 May 1887, 2 Jan. 1888, Salisbury MSS.)

Coercion and Conciliation in Ireland 1880-1892 by Lewis Perry Curtis


…was sent to the Vatican as head of an undercover diplomatic mission to secure Papal condemnation of Irish violence and the ‘Plan of Campaign’, the latest in a long line of tenant protection schemes to force landlords to accept reduced rents and limit evictions.

Patronage and Piety: The Politics of English Roman Catholicism, 1850-1900 by Dermot Quinn

He also went back again in January 1888.

The King Edward VII himself insisted on meeting with the Pope on 29 April 1903. The first such visit in over 300 years.

An entirely private visit – the first such by a British monarch…The inside story of this remarkable episode is recorded in the memoirs of Rennell Rodd. …An Italian seminarian (Angelo Roncalli) wrote: ‘A highly significant event this, of a heretical king of Protestant England, which has persecuted the Catholic Church for more than three centuries, going in person to pay his respects to the poor old Pope, held like a prisoner in his house.

The Popes and Britain: A History of Rule, Rupture and Reconciliation by Stella Fletcher

Just 3 months after Britain had declared war in the summer of 1914, the Cecil Bloc (through the next-gen of Milner and Balfour) sent the Duke again to see the Pope. This time to brief him on the ‘reasons’ they went to war, basically.

On November 24, 1914, it was announced that Sir Henry Howard, formerly British plenipotentiary to the Netherlands and delegate of his government to the Second Hague Peace Conference, was appointed special envoy to Pope Benedict XV. His instructions state that the appointment is made for a twofold purpose; namely, to congratulate the Pope upon his election, and at the same time to lay before him “the motives which compelled His Majesty’s Government, after exhausting every effort in their power to preserve the peace of Europe, to intervene in the present war,” and to inform him “of their attitude towards the various questions that arise therefrom.”

After pointing out that Great Britain had done all in its power, both by means of its representatives to neutral countries and by the circulation of diplomatic documents, to enable the neutral governments to understand the case of Great Britain and of its allies by removing conceptions of misunderstandings, to reach “the unbiased judgment of public opinion in these countries,” it is next pointed out that it was impossible to lay before the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church statements of the British attitude and motives which led Great Britain to take part in the present war, “owing to the want of a representative of His Majesty at the Vatican.

The British Mission to the Vatican; The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan., 1915), pp. 206-208; Cambridge University Press

As in a big, fat Nyah to the Cardinals – it’s your fault.

Sir Edward Grey – Round Table and Rhodes secret society man; the same guy who pressed President Wilson to form the League of Nations and pretend it was his idea – then instructs Sir Henry Howard (the Duke of Norfolk) on behalf of the British Government, as follows:

You will, therefore, in presenting your letters of credence to His Holiness and offering him the cordial congratulations of His Majesty the King on the occasion of his election, intimate to him that his Majesty’s Government are anxious to put themselves into direct communication with him for the purpose of demonstrating the motives which have governed their attitude since the first moment that the normal relations between the great Powers of Europe began to be disturbed, and of establishing that His Majesty’s Government used every effort to maintain the peace of Europe which His Holiness’s venerated predecessor had so much at heart. (The British Mission to the Vatican)


Methinks all of this was more about making sure that their previous deal with Leo XIII was still in force, would still be followed, than anything else.

And so it was…