ART_Tudur_v2     Dafydd  Tudur,  ‘Cymru’n  Deffro:  Michael  D.  Jones  and  the  “national   awakening”’’,  in:  Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014).   http://snm.nise.eu/index.php/studies/article/view/0204a   Dafydd  Tudur   CYMRU’N  DEFFRO   MICHAEL  D.  JONES  AND  THE  ‘NATIONAL  AWAKENING’   One  must  admit  that  the  blood  of  the  Welsh  nation  is  warm,  that   its  heart  is  beating  consistently  and  strongly,  and  that  it  breathes   healthily   –   the   whole   life   of   the   nation   has   been   restored   in   strength  and  in  energy.   Thus   wrote   one   correspondent   in   the   columns   of   the   Welsh   language   weekly   periodical   Y   Gwyliedydd   in   October   1894.   The   Welsh   nation   seemed  a  picture  of  health,  which  is  all  the  more  remarkable  when  taking   into   account   that   Wales,   as   a   political   entity,   could   not   have   been   less   visible   in  British  politics   for  most  of  the  nineteenth  century.   In  the  four   centuries  that  had  elapsed  since  the  1536  Act  of  Union  between  England   and  Wales,  only  one  act  of  Parliament  had  applied  to  Wales  as  separate   from  England.  As  far  as  government  was  concerned,  there  was  nothing  to   suggest  any  distinction  between  the  Welsh  and  their  English  neighbours   and,  despite  differences  in  language  and  custom,  both  people  were  treated   as  a  homogeneous  British  nation.  The  situation  had  changed  significantly   by  the  1890s.  Wales  was  recognised  in  political  circles  as  having  needs  and   interests   that   were   separate   from   those   of   England,   and   Welsh   MPs   campaigned  for  measures  that  were  specific  to  Wales.  Such  was  the  change   in  Wales’s  political  standing,  which  was  accompanied  by  a  renaissance  in   Welsh   language   and   literature,   that   some   contemporaries,   such   as   the   correspondent   in   Y   Gwyliedydd,   believed   that   Wales   was   experiencing   nothing  less  than  a  ‘national  awakening’.   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  2   When   the   ‘national   awakening’   made   its   impact   on   Wales,   there   were   contemporaries   who   were   also   eager   to   point   out   that   one   man   had   expressed   these  sentiments  of   ‘Cymru’n  deffro’  –   ‘Wales  awakes’  –   long   before  anyone  else.  One  admirer  described  him  as   the   ‘vanguard  of   the   national  awakening’,  while  another  noted  that   ‘the  historian  who  writes   the  history  of  the  Welsh  Awakening  must  give  detailed  consideration  to   his  vigorous  attempts  to  bring  it  about’.  The  twentieth-­‐century  Welsh  poet   David  James  Jones  (better  known  by  his  bardic  name  'Gwenallt')  described   him   as   ‘the   greatest   Welshman   of   the   nineteenth   century;   the   greatest   nationalist  after  Owain  Glyndŵr’,  and  Gwynfor  Evans  claimed  that  he  was   the  one  who  did  most  to  generate  the  hope  that  Wales,  as  a  nation,  would   have  a  future.  For  Evans,  he  was  ‘in  many  ways  the  spiritual  father  of  Plaid   Cymru’.  Hailed  also  as  ‘the  founding  father  of  modern  political  nationalism   in   Wales’,   that   figure,   a   Nonconformist   minister   and   college   principal   named  Michael  Daniel   Jones,  has  been  described  as   ‘the   first   in  modern   times  to  offer  the  Welsh  a  rational  political  solution  to  the  question  of  how   best  to  maintain  their  identity’.   Despite  this  acclaim,  studies  of  nineteenth-­‐century  Welsh  political  history   suggest   that   Michael   D.   Jones   was   a   marginal   figure   and   his   apparent   isolation  from  mainstream  politics  has  not  passed  unnoticed.  Kenneth  O.   Morgan  described  Jones  as  an  ‘isolated  figure’.  Similarly,  Ieuan  Gwynedd   Jones   referred   to   him   as   ‘lonely   and   enigmatic’,   while   R.   Tudur   Jones   branded  him  ‘a  loner’  who  ‘made  no  attempt  to  form  a  group  or  party  to   propagate   his   views’   and   did   not   ‘associate   himself   closely   with   any   particular   movement   after   1870’.   Indeed,   in   the   opening   chapter   of   his   recent  study  of  the  political  thought  of  Plaid  Cymru,  Richard  Wyn  Jones   draws  attention  to  the  absence  of  a  nationalist  movement  in  Wales  during   the  nineteenth  century,  claiming  that   ‘it  could  be  argued  that  this   is  the   only   major   historiographical   question   raised   by   the   Welsh   experience,   especially  when  there  were  few  countries  in  Europe  during  the  nineteenth   century   where   there   were   better   prospects   of   a   successful   national   movement.’   When   bearing   in   mind   that   many   twentieth-­‐century   Welsh   nationalists   have   regarded   Jones’s   thought   as   progressive   or   even   prophetic,   it   is   surprising   that   his   understanding   of   national   identity   and   his   political   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   3   vision   for   Wales   have   not   been   subjected   to   more   detailed   analysis   in   order   to   gain   a   better   understanding   of   their   development.   The   only   comprehensive  study  of  his  life  and  work  published  to  date  continues  to   be  the  somewhat  hagiographical  biography  written  by  his  former  student   and  friend  Evan  Pan  Jones,  entitled  Oes  a  Gwaith  y  Prif  Athraw,  y  Parch.   Michael  Daniel  Jones,  Bala  and  published  in  1903.  Based  on  an  analysis  of   Michael   D.   Jones’s   work,   in   particular   the   letters   and   articles   that   he   published  between  1848  and  1865,   this  paper  describes  the  nature  and   formation   of   his   views   on   Welsh   national   identity   and   the   subsequent   development  of  his  nationalist  aspirations  for  Wales.  It  concludes  with  an   attempt  to  explain  why  Jones  did  not  gain  wider  support  for  national  self-­‐ government  during  the  nineteenth  century.   Background   Michael  Daniel  Jones  was  born  near  the  village  of  Llanuwchllyn  in  the  rural   county  of  Meirionnydd  in  north  Wales  on  2  March  1822.  He  was  the  third   of  five  children  born  to  Michael  and  Mary  Jones.  His  father,  Michael  Jones,   was   an   Independent   minister   who   also   kept   a   school   in   Llanuwchllyn   where  children  were  taught  to  read  and  write  in  English  and  instructed  ‘in   the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion’.  Michael  Jones  was  eager  to  see  his   children  take  advantage  of  the  educational  opportunities  that  they  were   offered   and   it   has   been   claimed   that   young   Michael   had   mastered   the   rudiments  of  both  Latin  and  Greek  by  the  age  of  twelve.  He  completed  his   studies  at  the  age  of  fifteen,  and  spent  the  subsequent  two  years  assisting   his   father   at   the   school.   In   1839   he   was   admitted   to   the   Presbyterian   College  in  the  town  of  Carmarthen  in  South  West  Wales.  He  went  on  from   there  in  1844  to  study  at  the  Congregational  College  in  Highbury,  London,   but  completed  only  three  of  the  course’s  four  years.  The  reasons  behind   his  retirement  are  unclear,  but  the  report  of  Highbury  College  Committee   for  1847-­‐8  stated  clearly  that  he  had  ‘proceeded  to  North  America,  where   he  has  the  prospect  of  being  useful  to  his  spiritually  destitute  countrymen,   settled   in   that   part   of   the   world’.   Jones   spent   most   of   the   following   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  4   eighteen  months  in  the  state  of  Ohio,  where  his  eldest  sister  Mary  Ann  had   settled  since  1837.   Michael  D.  Jones  was  ordained  to  the  Christian  ministry  at  a  Welsh  chapel   in   Cincinnati   in   December   1848.   He   had   not   intended   to   settle   there   permanently   and   he   returned   to   Wales   in   1849   and   was   inducted   as   minister  at  Bwlchnewydd  and  Gibeon,  about  five  miles  from  Carmarthen.   Three   years   later,   he   returned   to   Meirionnydd   to   succeed   his   father   as   Principal  of  Bala   Independent  College.  He  also  accepted  calls   to  become   the   minister   of   five   Independent   churches   in   the   area.   His   increasing   workload  would  force  him  to  relinquish  his  responsibility  for  two  of  the   churches  in  1860,  but  he  retained  his  position  as  principal  of  Bala  College   and  minister  of   the  remaining   three  churches  until  his   retirement   from   public  life  in  1892.  He  died  at  the  age  of  76  at  his  home,  Bodiwan,  on  the   outskirts  of  Bala  on  2  December  1898.   It   is  not   for   the  performance  of  his  duties  as  a  Christian  minister  or  as   principal   of   a   theological   college   that   Michael   D.   Jones   is   largely   remembered   in   contemporary   Wales.   Instead,   his   name   is   usually   associated  with  the  establishment  of  a  ‘Welsh’  settlement  in  Patagonia,  a   sparsely  populated  region  of  South  America,  as  a  place  where  it  was  hoped   that   their   national   identity   would   be   safeguarded   from   the   assimilative   influence   of   other   cultures   and   could   flourish   unhindered.   He   was   instrumental  in  its  establishment  in  1865  and,  for  nearly  thirty  years,  he   was   the   most   vociferous   advocate   of   the   movement’s   aims   and   endeavours.  By  the  time  he  retired  from  public  life  in  1892,  the  Settlement   had  become  home  to  about  two  thousand  Welsh  speakers.   Michael  D.  Jones’s  understanding  of  Welsh  national  characteristics  also  led   him  to  the  conclusion  that,  in  order  to  maintain  their  identity  and  further   their   national   interests,   the   people   of   Wales   should   campaign   for   their   own   parliament.   But   alongside   his   nationalist   interests,   Jones   was   also   involved   in   local   politics.   In   his   native   county   of   Meirionnydd,   he   campaigned   for   the   rights   of   tenant   farmers,   whom   he   believed   to   be   oppressed   by   landowners   and   their   staff.   His   vocal   support   for   David   Williams,  the  first  Liberal  candidate  to  stand  for  the  parliamentary  seat  of   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   5   Meirionnydd,  secured  for  Michael  D.  Jones  a  place  in  the  political  history  of   the  county.   As  Principal  of  Bala  Independent  College,  Jones  held  an  influential  position   among   the   Independents,   one   of   the   three   largest   Protestant   denominations  in  Wales  collectively  known  as  Nonconformists  (the  other   two  being  the  Calvinistic  Methodists  and  the  Baptists).  Michael  D.   Jones   served   as   principal   for   almost   forty   years,   during   which   he   instructed   more   than   two   hundred   students,   most   of   whom   went   on   to   enter   the   Christian  ministry.  These  denominations  had,  since  the  beginning  of  the   eighteenth   century,   seen   a   significant   increase   in   adherents   and   congregations.  For  decades,  the  Nonconformists  were  at  the  forefront  in   improving   the   level   of   literacy   among   the   people   of   Wales,   whom   they   provided  with  vast  amounts  of  material  published  in  the  Welsh  language.   By  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  educational  institutions  such   as  Bala   Independent  College  played  a  key  role   in  educating  young  men   who  would  be  held  in  high  esteem  by  congregations  throughout  Wales  and   beyond,  not  only  fulfilling  pastoral  duties  but  also  shaping  public  opinion   on   a   range   of   subjects.   The   nature   and   extent   of   the   Nonconformists’   influence   on   society   in   Wales   during   the   nineteenth   century   deserves   further  examination;  suffice  to  say  that  this  was  the  context  within  which   Michael  D.  Jones  made  his  contribution  to  public  life  in  Wales,  and  that  the   pulpit  and  periodical  press  were  the  means  by  which  he  propagated  his   nationalist  aspirations.   Identity   It  was  during  his  visit  to  the  United  States  in  1848-­‐9  that  Michael  D.  Jones   first  expressed  a  concern  for  Welsh  national  characteristics.  There  he  saw   assimilative   forces   within   American   society   eroding   the   national   characteristics  of  communities  of  Welsh  people  who  had  migrated  there.   Writing   in  1849,  he   lamented   the   immigrants’  gradual  assimilation   into   American  culture:   ‘It   is  truly  heartbreaking  to  work  with  any  institution   belonging  to  the  Welsh  in  this  country,  when  all  evidence  shows  that  our   nation  will  disappear  here.’   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  6   Jones  believed  that  by  preserving  their  cultural  characteristics,  the  Welsh   could  retain  their  national  identity  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  and,  more   importantly,  pass  it  on  to  descendants  who  had  been  born  outside  Wales.   Similarly,  Welsh  people  could  lose  or  change  their  national  identity  simply   by  abandoning  their  cultural  characteristics  and  adopting  those  of  another   nation.  For  him,  national   identity  was  subjective   in   that   its  continuance   would  ultimately  depend  on  the  will  of  those  who  belonged  to  that  specific   cultural  community.  The  connection  between  land  and  people  was  not  an   important  factor  in  this  view  of  Welsh  identity,  which  explains  why  Jones   saw  no  contradiction  between  his  fierce  criticism  of  the  British  imperial   endeavours  on  the  one  hand  and,  on  the  other,  his  prominent  role  in  the   establishment  of  a  Welsh  settlement  in  Patagonia.   The  three  characteristics  that  distinguished  the  Welsh  people  from  other   peoples   and   which   were   mentioned   in   Jones’s   articles   during   this   formative  period  of  his  thought  were  their  language,  customs  and  religion.   The   belief   that   the   Welsh   were   an   exceptionally   religious   people   was   commonplace  among  Welsh  Nonconformists  at  that  time.  Looking  at  their   recent  history,  they  claimed  that  God  had  shown  particular  favour  to  their   nation,   raising   it   ‘from   the   depths   of   moral   degradation,   ignorance   and   superstition,   to   the   highest   rank   amongst   the   enlightened   Protestant   nations   of   the   world’.   Jones   wrote   to   similar   effect   in   1849,   when   he   glorified  the  religious  character  of  the  Welsh:   Let   other   nations   boast   of   their   learning,   their   refinement,   and   their  civility,  and  we  will  strive  with  our  religion.  Religion,  and  not   learning,   is   the  glory  of   the  world  –  Christianity   is   the  glory  of   religion  –  Protestantism  is  the  glory  of  Christianity  –  Dissent  is  the   glory  of  Protestantism  –  Wales  is  the  glory  of  Dissent.   He  was  writing  at  a  time  when  this  rhetoric  was  intensified  by  the  Welsh   Nonconformists   response   to   the  comments  made   in   the  Reports  on   the   State  of  Education  in  Wales  published  in  1847.  The  ‘Blue  Books’,  as  they   were  known,  contained  comments  on  the  morality  of  people  in  Wales  that   were  met  with  cries  of  protest   in   the  Nonconformist  press,   challenging   their  veracity  and  suggesting  that  members  of  the  Anglican  Church  who   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   7   had  been  interviewed  by  the  Commissioners  had  given  false  or  misleading   evidence  in  order  to  denigrate  their  character.   During  his  ministry   in  Cincinnati,  Michael  D.   Jones  became  aware  of  an   apparent   tendency  among  Welsh   immigrants   to   lapse   in  moral   conduct   and  neglect  religious  observances.  Jones  had  only  to  spend  a  few  months   in   the   United   States   to   conclude   that   there   were   ‘hundreds   who   have   become  worldly  and  irreligious’  since  their  arrival.  He  saw  a  link  between   the   loss   of   the   immigrants’   cultural   characteristics,   particularly   their   language,  and  this  deviation  from  moral  conduct.  ‘The  loss  of  our  language   will  not  only  mean  the  loss  of  a  language’,  he  wrote,  ‘but  also  the  loss  of   our   religion   and   morality   to   a   considerable   degree’.   Rather   than   concluding   that   the  religiosity  of   the  Welsh  people  was  merely  another   cultural  characteristic,  Jones  attached  greater  value  to  the  Welsh  language.   In  another  letter,  he  wrote  that  ‘the  Welsh  rightfully  feel  that  morality  and   religion  are  a  nation’s  glory’,  before  adding   that   ‘it   is   the   language   that   preserves   our   nation’.   He   concluded   that   the   Welsh   were   a   uniquely   religious   people   only   so   far   as   they   remained   Welsh   in   language   and   custom.  His  first  expressions  of  Welsh  national  identity  stemmed  from  his   belief  that  the  preservation  of  national  characteristics,  the  Welsh  language   in  particular,  was  crucial  for  the  spiritual  wellbeing  of  the  Welsh  people.   Significantly,   Michael   D.   Jones   believed   that   these   observations   on   the   connection  between   language  and  religion  could  be  applied  to  Wales  as   well   as   to   the   United   States.   ‘Are   not   our   language,   our   customs,   our   religion   and   our   morality   worth   keeping?’   he   asked,   ‘and   does   not   the   history  of  our  nation  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  as  well  as  the  other,  prove   that  losing  our  language  usually  means  losing  the  other  three?’   Michael   D.   Jones   returned   to   Wales   in   1849   with   a   deep   interest   in   national  characteristics  which,  combined  with  his  determination  to  make   his  nationality  a  pervasive  element   in  his   life,  had  the  sense  of  purpose   that   was   characteristic   of   late   eighteenth-­‐   and   nineteenth-­‐century   Romanticism.  Indeed,  Michael  D.  Jones  is  a  link  between  the  Romantic  and   Nonconformist  traditions  in  Wales  –  two  traditions  established  during  the   same   period   but   often   seen   as   distinct   from   each   other.   When   Jones   formulated  his  own  grammar  and  alphabet  for  the  Welsh  language  during   the  1850s,  for  example,  it  was  based  on  ‘Coelbren  y  Beirdd’,  an  alphabet   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  8   that  was  purported  to  belong  to  Welsh  bardic  circles  but  had  been   lost   since  the  Middle  Ages.  It  was  later  found  to  be  one  of  the  fabrications  of   antiquarian  and  bard  Edward  Williams,  better  known  as  Iolo  Morganwg,   the   person   whose   name   is   most   often   associated   with   the   Romantic   Movement  in  Wales.  Jones  also  had  connections  with  Lady  Llanofer,  one  of   the  foremost  patrons  of  Welsh  folk  heritage  during  the  nineteenth  century   and  one  who  is  seen  as  one  of  the  heirs  of  the  Romantic  tradition  in  Wales.   He  is  known  to  have  stayed  at  Tymawr  in  Llanover  in  1877,  where  he  met   Lady  Llanofer  and  presented  her  with  a  fox  skin  from  Patagonia.  He  also   sent  his  children  to  stay  at  Llanofer,  where  they  were  taught  to  play  the   Welsh  triple  harp.  Jones  not  only  gave  his  children  Welsh  first  names,  but   also  surnames  that  were   in  the  traditional  Welsh   form  of   ‘ap  Iwan’  and   ‘erch  Iwan’,  meaning  ‘son’  or  ‘daughter  of  John’.  Occasionally,  he  used  the   Welsh  version  of  Michael,  ‘Mihangel’,  not  only  as  a  pseudonym  for  writing   to  the  press,  but  also  when  writing  to  friends  (and  which  he  later  gave  to   his   second   son).   And   when   in   1861   he   gave   his   newly   built   house   the   Welsh  name  ‘Bodiwan’  (meaning  ‘Residence  of  John’  or   ‘Jones’),   it  was  a   patriotic  statement,  as  it  was  considered  fashionable  to  give  English  names   to  new  homes.   Nationalism   While  Michael  D.  Jones  asserted  the  importance  of  Welsh  national  identity   during  his  visit  to  the  United  States,  it  is  clear  from  his  published  letters   that  it  had  not  yet  become  the  basis  upon  which  he  expressed  his  political   aspirations   for   the   Welsh   nation.   In   1848,   he   saw   the   union   between   England   and   Wales   as   based   on   mutual   consent   and   saw   no   conflict   between  the  interests  of  the  British  state  and  the  need  to  safeguard  Welsh   national   characteristics.   If   the   Welsh   people   made   a   concerted   call   for   better  recognition  of  the  Welsh  language,  Jones  believed  that  the  British   government  would  grant  it  to  them  without  much  delay.   His  opinion  of   the  British  government  was   to   change  as  a   result  of  his   observations  on  the  correlation  between   language,  which  he  saw  as  the   key  characteristic  of  Welsh  national  identity,  and  political  power.  There  is   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   9   reason  to  believe  that  his  views  on  this  subject  had  begun  to  take  form   during   his   visit   to   the   United   States   in   1848-­‐9.   When   referring   to   the   disadvantages   that   the   Welsh   faced   when   settling   in   the   same   communities   as   the   English,   Scottish   and   Irish   immigrants,   Jones   noted   that   the  reasons   for   their  weakness  as  a  cultural  group  were,   first,   that   they   were   a   minority,   and   secondly,   that   the   legislation   is   written   in   a   different   language.   When   calling   for   the   establishment   of   a   Welsh   settlement,  he  noted  that   the   law  in   the  proposed  settlement  should  be   written  and  administered  in  Welsh,  though  he  gave  no  further  explanation   for  his  views  on  the  matter  at  the  time.   The  importance  that  Michael  D.   Jones  attached  to  the  legal  status  of  the   Welsh  language  in  the  articles  which  he  published  in  the  United  States  was   an  early  suggestion  of  the  theory  that  was  outlined  a  decade  later  in  his   pamphlet,   Gwladychfa   Gymreig   (A   Welsh   Settlement).   In   the   pamphlet,   Jones  explained  that  in  all  ‘settlements’  there  are  cultural  groups  that  may   be  classified  as  either   ‘formative’  or   ‘assimilative’.   In  fact,   Jones’s  theory   applied  to  any  society  in  which  more  than  one  language  was  spoken,  for   when  he  discussed  the  formative  or  assimilative  status  of  cultural  groups,   he  was  actually  referring  to  the  status  of  their  languages.   For  Jones,  the  dominance  of  a  cultural  group  was  reflected  by  the  status  of   its   language   in   the  spheres  of   law,   trade,  education  and  politics,  and   in   most   countries   the   dominant   cultural   group   formed   the   majority.   However,  cultural  dominance  did  not  always  reflect  the  number  of  people,   or  the  proportion  of  the  total  population,  that  belonged  to  that  group.  In   colonies,  he  noted,   the  situation  was  usually  different.   Jones  referred  to   Algeria   as   an   example,   where   the   formative   culture   was   French   rather   than   Algerian.   Similarly,   he   noted   that   the   English,   as   the   dominant   cultural  group  in  all  the  British  colonies,  ‘force  every  newcomer  to  adopt   their   language   and   customs,   which   have   given   them   [the   English]   the   advantage   of   being   foremost   in   influence,   and   an   opportunity   to   monopolize  every  position  of  comfort,  profit,  and  honour’.  Other  cultural   groups  in  the  colonies  could  not  gain  access  to  positions  of  prestige  and   authority.  He  referred  to  these  as  ‘assimilative’  cultures.  Some  members  of   the   assimilative   cultural   groups   adopted   the   characteristics   of   the   dominant   cultural   group   in   the   hope   of   acquiring   power   and   influence,   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  10   while   others   simply   ‘yielded’   by   adopting   the   formative   language   as   it   became   an   integral   part   of   everyday   life.   Jones   could   see   that,   if   these   trends  persisted,  members  of  the  assimilative  cultural  groups  would  ‘melt   into  the  mould’  of  the  formative  culture  to  such  an  extent  that  no  remnants   would  be  left  of  their  original  cultural  characteristics  –  in  Jones’s  words,   ‘like   men   buried   at   sea,   without   anything   to   show   that   they   had   ever   existed’.  When  establishing  a  Welsh  settlement,  Michael  D.   Jones  argued   that,  wherever  it  was  located,  the  preservation  of  national  identity  would   depend  on  the  Welsh  language  achieving  ‘formative’  status  as  the  language   of  social,  legal,  educational  and  political  institutions.   The  development  of  Michael  D.  Jones’s  views  on  the  interaction  between   cultural  groups  caused  a  radical  change  in  his  analysis  of  the  relationship   between  England  and  Wales.  His  hope  that  the  British  government  would   acknowledge  the  rights  of  the  Welsh  nation  had  been  ambitious  to  say  the   least.  In  the  mid-­‐nineteenth  century,  Wales  was  not  even  recognised  by  its   own  MPs  as  having  distinct  political  needs.  Yet  it  was  within  this  context   that  Michael  D.  Jones  formulated  his  ideas  on  ‘formative’  and  ‘assimilative’   cultures  and  observed  that  parallels  could  be  drawn  between  Wales  and   the  colonies  of  the  British  Empire.  Welsh  speakers  formed  the  majority  in   Wales,  and  proportionally,  they  were  the  strongest  cultural  group,  but  it   was   English   culture   that   provided   access   to   positions   of   power   and   privilege.  Welsh  culture  was  ‘assimilative’  in  Wales,  because  English  was   the   language   of   government,   law,   trade   and   education.   Thus,   Jones   concluded  that  the  relationship  between  Wales  and  England  was  colonial   rather   than   contractual.   He   placed   Wales   and   Ireland,   two   nations   that   were  rarely  considered  as  British  colonies,  alongside  India,  where  three   quarters  of  the  British  Empire’s  population  lived  and  which  was  the  most   important  British  colony  in  terms  of  trade.  He  even  claimed  in  1856  that   ‘Wales,  Ireland  and  the  nations  of  India  are  slaves  of  Englishmen’.   Michael  D.  Jones  believed  that  Wales’s  colonial  status  was  reflected  in  its   economic  as  well  as  its  cultural  situation.  He  noted,  for  example,  that  the   wealth  of  natural  resources  in  Wales,  such  as  water  and  minerals,  which   could  be  utilised  to  serve  the  needs  of  the  Welsh  people.  He  suggested  that   the   utilisation   of   these   resources   could   provide   employment,   thereby   reducing  the  rate  of  emigration  from  Wales.  Rather  than  being  utilised  for   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   11   the  benefit  of  Wales,  however,  these  resources  were  exploited  by  England.   He  wrote:   At  present,  the  Welshman  sends  virtually  all  his  wool  to  England   to   be   spun.   He   pays   to   transport   the   wool,   as   well   as   fattened   animals   such   as   oxen   and   sheep   to   provide   meat   for   the   Englishmen  who  do  the  spinning.  And  once  the  Englishman  has   finished  the  cloth,  the  Welshman  must  pay  for  its  transportation   back  to  Wales,  thus  giving  the  Englishman  a  good  profit  so  that  he   can  live  in  his  palace  in  England.   Improvements   to   Wales’s   transport   connections   with   England  over  the  previous  fifty   years   had   brought   new   industry   into   Wales,   thus   creating,   in   Prys   Morgan’s   words,   ‘a   system   of   regional   economic   inequality,   emphasizing  for  the  Welsh  that   their   economy   was   a   subservient   one,   serving   the   needs   of   mostly   English   capitalism’.   For   Michael   D.   Jones,   this   ‘regional   economic   inequality’   reflected   the  Welsh   nation’s   colonial   status   in   relation   to   England.   Jones’s   costume,   a   suit   made   of   woollen   cloth,   knee-­‐length   trousers,   combined   with   his   unusually   long  beard,  was  one   of   his   distinguishing   features   and   he   claimed   that   it   was,   above   all,   an   expression   of   patriotism.   The   woollen   cloth   Michael  D.  Jones  in  his  patriotic  costume,   around  1890  |  PEOPLE’  COLLECTION  WALES  –   WIKIMEDIA  COMMONS   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  12   had  been  manufactured  in  Wales,  and  it  has  been  claimed  that  he  prided   himself  on  the  fact  that  his  costume  had  been  made  entirely  in  Wales,  with   the  unfortunate  exception  of  the  buttons  on  his  jacket.  ‘We  need  to  educate   our   nation   to   support   our   workshops,’   he   wrote,   before   assuring   his   readers:  ‘I  myself  always  wear  clothes  made  in  Wales’.  Jones  believed  that   self-­‐government  was  not  only  crucial  to  the  future  survival  of  the  Welsh   nation  as  an  ethnic  group  but  also  key  to  addressing  what  he  saw  as  the   social  and  economic  injustices  of  his  time.   The  failure  to  gain  wider  support   Michael  D.  Jones’s  understanding  of  national  identity  and  his  observations   on  the  relationship  between  Wales  and  the  British  state  had,  by  the  end  of   the  1850s,  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  self-­‐government  was  crucial  to   the  wellbeing  and  survival  of  the  Welsh  as  a  nation.  The  fact  that  he  was   active  in  public  life  for  a  further  thirty  years,  and  that  he  held  a  position  of   such   influence   within   one   of   the   largest   Nonconformist   denominations   throughout   that   period,   raises   the   question   why   did   he   not   gain   more   support  for  this  political  vision  for  Wales.   Several  factors  may  have  played  a  part.  It  is  noteworthy  that  while  Jones   had  formed  his  opinions  on  the  right  of  nations  to  govern  their  own  affairs   during  the  1850s,  he  did  not  begin  to  express  his  nationalist  aspirations  in   the   denominational   press   on   a   regular   basis,   or   at   least   apply   them   to   Wales   in   relation   to   the   British   state,   until   the   mid-­‐1870s.   Instead,   he   focused  his  efforts  on   local  political   campaigns   in  Meirionnydd  and   the   establishment  of  the  settlement  in  Patagonia.  Jones  may  not  have  been  a   pacifist,   but   he   was   committed   to   constitutional   reform   rather   than   political   protest,   despite   the   patent   inequality   between   England   and   Wales.   ‘We   are   a   liberal   nation,’   he   wrote   in   1863,   ‘and   yet   we   are   oppressed  and  enslaved.  We  do  not  see  any  peaceful  means  of  perfecting   our  national  character  other  than  through  national  migration.’  Because  of   his  views  on  political  reform  and  the  constraints  of  the  political  system  in   Wales  at  the  time,  Jones  sought  to  realise  his  political  vision  for  the  Welsh   nation  on  South  American  soil,  and   the  movement   to  establish  a  Welsh   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   13   settlement  in  Patagonia  could  therefore  be  seen  as  a  manifestation  of  the   energy  and  resources  that  may  otherwise  have  been  channelled  towards   self-­‐government  for  the  Welsh  in  Wales.   While  Jones’s  demand  for  a  Welsh  parliament  was  firm  and  unequivocal,   he  never  set  out   in  detail  his  views  on  the  subject.  He  believed  that  the   Parliament  should  be  located  in  Aberystwyth,  but  he  did  not  express  any   opinion  on  the  form  it  should  take  or  the  way  in  which  it  should  operate.   The   Patagonian   Settlement   was   established   under   a   constitution   that   could   be   regarded   as   one   of   the   most   democratic   constitutions   in   the   world  at  that  time,  but  although  it  may  have  been  regarded  as  a  blueprint   for  a  self-­‐governing  Wales,   there   is  nothing   to  suggest   that   Jones  had  a   special  role  in  its  preparation.  Jones  was  equally  unclear  on  the  subject  of   how  to  achieve  the  goal  of  self-­‐government  and,  as  R.  Tudur  Jones  noted,   he  did  not  form  a  group  or  associate  with  any  particular  movement  with  a   view  to  furthering  his  aims.  He  published  articles  on  almost  a  fortnightly   basis   for   over   a   decade,   but   the   haphazard   manner   in   which   he   wrote   tended  to  obscure  his   intentions.  There  was  hardly  any  development  or   refinement  in  his  ideas  or  rhetoric  between  the  1860s  and  his  retirement   from   public   life   in   the   1890s.   During   the   1880s,   when   he   was   most   productive   as   a   contributor   to   the   Nonconformist   press,   there   was   no   telling  what  would  be  the  subject  of  his  articles  from  one  week  to  the  next,   and  he  wrote  on  a  range  of  subjects  and  he  was  often  distracted  from  the   issue  at  hand,  especially  by  personal  grudges.   Michael  D.  Jones  was  also  a  controversial  and  divisive  character,  and  this   isolated  him  from  many  other  influential  Nonconformist  ministers  at  the   time.  From  an  early  stage  in  his  ministry,  he  displayed  a  tendency  to  enter   into   dispute   not   only   with   landowners   and   churchmen   but   with   fellow   ministers   too.   From   the   1870s   onwards,   Jones   became   surrounded   by   controversy   because   of   the   way   in   which   his   involvement   in   the   Patagonian  movement,  and  the  financial  troubles  that  he  encountered  as  a   result,   had   an   impact   on   the   affairs   of   Bala   Independent   College.   His   behaviour  was  outspoken  and  uncompromising,  often  causing  offence  or   inciting   similarly   unreserved   responses   from   other   Nonconformists.   It   would  appear  that  Michael  D.  Jones’s  personal  grudges  were  not  only  an   unnecessary   distraction   but   also   a   barrier   to   the   advancement   of   his   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  14   nationalist  project.  He  seems  to  have  been  on  better  terms  with  members   of  the  younger  generation.  The  Nonconformist  ministers  among  those  who   pioneered   the   Welsh   settlement   had   all   studied   under   him   at   Bala   Independent  College  and  when  the  movement  Cymru  Fydd  was  launched   by  a  group  of  Welshmen  in  London  in  1886,  two  young  men  from  the  Bala   area  –  Thomas  Edward  Ellis  and  O.  M.  Edwards  –  and  also  a  young  David   Lloyd  George  were  among  its  prominent  members  and  were  regarded  as   political  fledglings  of  Michael  D.  Jones.  Political  issues  were  not  mentioned   at  all  in  the  Cymru  Fydd  society’s  programme  in  October  1886,  and  it  has   been   claimed   that   it   was   through   Ellis’s   influence   that   national   self-­‐ government  was  later  given  a  central  place  in  its  manifesto.   Jones’s  views  on   industrialisation  and  urbanisation  were  also  barrier   to   gaining   support   within   areas   of   Wales   where   what   he   saw   as   the   key   characteristics   of   the   Welsh   nation   were   most   at   threat.   Alongside   his   appreciation   of   language   and   customs,   Michael   D.   Jones   expressed   contempt   for   the   urban   lifestyle.   While   in   Cincinnati,   he   pleaded   with   immigrants   to   avoid   what   he   saw   as   a   lifestyle   of   pride,   idleness   and   materialism,   and   to   remain   ‘as   rustic   as   their   forefathers’.   This   tension   between  rural  and  urban  lifestyles  was  also  apparent  in  letters  and  articles   that   he   published   during   his   ministry   at   Bwlchnewydd   in   Carmarthenshire,  and  never  receded.  He  believed  that  the  farmer’s  work   possessed  a  natural  integrity  and  regarded  urban  habits  as  conducive  to   moral  corruption.  Moreover,  Jones's  discussion  of  industry  in  Wales  was   limited  to  the  woollen  industry;  he  hardly  mentioned  the  coal,  iron,  lead,   tin  industries,  which  did  not  seem  to  be  a  part  of  his  perception  of  Wales.   Rather,   his   perception   of   Wales   was   modelled   on   the   social-­‐economic   landscape  of  Meirionnydd,  where  he   lived  most  of  his   life.  Meirionnydd   was   among   the   Welsh   counties   that   experienced   the   least   social   and   economic  change  during  the  nineteenth  century  and  it  is  therefore  hardly   surprising   that   Jones’s   perception   of   Welsh   identity   was   quite   different   from  the  reality  that  many  experienced  in  late  nineteenth-­‐century  Wales.   It  was  shaped  by   Jones’s   reaction   to   the  effects  of   industrialisation  and   urbanisation.  Rather  than  setting  out  a  better  future  for  a  Wales  that  was   being  rapidly  industrialised,  he  presented  a  portrait  of  Wales  that  ignored   those   aspects   altogether.   He   had   received   an   unusually   extensive   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   15   education,  he  had  travelled  to  North  and  South  America  by  the  mid-­‐1880s,   and   he   discussed   the   political   situation   in   such   remote   places   as   Afghanistan,   Brazil   and   Burma,   and   yet   he   displayed   this   remarkable   parochialism.   While   consistently   emphasising   that   there   was   a   much   greater   world   beyond   ‘Great   Britain’,   Michael   D.   Jones   was   unable,   or   perhaps   unwilling,   to   see   the   rapidly   changing   Wales   that   was   beyond   Meirionnydd.   Lastly,  Michael  D.  Jones’s  failed  to  initiate  a  nationalist  movement  because   the  prevailing  view  of  Welsh  national  identity  during  the  second  half  of  the   nineteenth   century   was   fundamentally   different   from   his   views   on   the   nature   of   Welsh   nationhood.   Jones   saw   language   as   the   cornerstone   of   national  identity,  but  many  of  his  fellow  Nonconformists  did  not  share  the   same  opinion  on   its   importance.  Their  attitudes  towards   language  were   shaped  by  liberal  thought  and  in  particular  the  free  market  principles  that   had,  by  the  1840s,  become  an  integral  aspect  of  liberal  politics.  The  appeal   to  Nonconformists  of  the   laissez-­‐faire  economic  philosophy  was  that  the   principle  of  non-­‐interference  seemed  to  correspond  to  their  demand  that   the  state  should  not  interfere  in  matters  of  religion.  Some  Nonconformists   applied   the   laissez-­‐faire   principle   to   every   aspect   of   life.   ‘Competition’,   wrote  John  Roberts  (J.  R.),  minister  at  Conwy,  was   ‘the  order  of  heaven’   and   ‘free   market   and   competition   is   that   which   keeps   this   world   in   its   place’.  Nothing,  not  even  language,  was  free  from  market  forces,  and  the   notion  that  their  religious  convictions  depended  on  the  language  that  they   spoke  was  inconceivable.   Welsh   Nonconformists’   somewhat   nonchalant   attitude   towards   their   native   language  was  perhaps  most  apparent   in  the   ‘English  cause’  (as   it   was   called),   a   movement   initiated   by   a   group   of   influential   Welsh   ministers  who  were  concerned  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  non-­‐Welsh   speaking   immigrants   who   settled   in   Wales.   Rather   than   encourage   the   immigrants   to   learn   the   Welsh   language   in   order   to   attend   the   Welsh   chapel   services,   the   intention   was   to   increase   the   number   of   English-­‐ language  Nonconformist  churches  in  Wales  to  provide  for  the  immigrants.   For  this  movement’s  leaders,  there  was  no  reason  for  language  to  stand  in   the  way  of  religion.   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur  16   It   is  noteworthy  that,   in  the  response  to  the  Blue  Books  of  1847,   it  was   mostly  the  remarks  on  the  morality  of  Welsh  people  that  Nonconformists   refuted  and  not  those  on  the  status  and  value  of  the  Welsh  language.  There   were   Anglicans   who   responded   in   defense   of   the   language,   but   the   Nonconformist  denominational  press  condemned  the  Established  Church   for  what  it  saw  as  the  betrayal  of  the  Welsh  people,  and  associated  Welsh   nationhood   with   Nonconformity   and   its   influence   on   the   people.   The   Nonconformists   rallied   together   to   form   a   united   front   and   the   denominational  press  began  to  project  a  polarised  view  of  Welsh  society  in   which  Nonconformists  represented  the  interests  of  the  ‘people’  (‘gwerin’   being   the   term   often   used   in   Welsh,   which   is   similar   to   the   concept   of   ‘folk’)  and,  at  the  other  end,  the  Established  Church  and  its  close  links  with   the   wealthy   landowner   class.   From   the   mid-­‐nineteenth   century,   the   Nonconformists   claimed   that   they   not   only   represented   the   people   of   Wales,  but  that  they  were  the  people  of  Wales,  a  claim  that  was  made  by   the  Welsh  MP  Henry  Richard  during  the  1860s  and,  more  notably,  Prime   Minister  William  Gladstone  during  the  1880s.   The   Nonconformists   channelled   national   consciousness   in   support   of   campaigns   that   advanced   their   own   agenda,   and,   having   responded   in   unison  to  the  Blue  Books,  they  looked  to  the  Liberal  Party  for  the  redress   of  political  grievances.   It  was  hardly  surprising  that  a  close  relationship   should  develop  between  Nonconformists  and  the  Liberal  Party.  Pledging   their   support   to   the   Tories,   who   represented   the   Anglican   Church   and   landed   aristocracy,   was   never   a   viable   option.   The   intensity   of   Nonconformist  loyalty  to  the  Liberal  Party,  and  particularly  to  its  leader,   William   Gladstone,   was   remarkable.   It   was   crystallised   by   a   series   of   measures  introduced  by  the  Gladstone’s  administration  in  the  late  1860s   and  early  1870s.  These  included  the  abolition  of  the  Church  Rate  in  1868,   the  disestablishment  of  the  Anglican  Church  in  Ireland  in  1869,  and  the   opening  of  the  ancient  English  universities  to  Nonconformists  in  1871.   Soon   after   replacing   the   Conservative   government   in   1880,   the   Liberal   Party  introduced  the  Sunday  Closing  Act,  which  prohibited  the  opening  of   public   houses   on   Sunday   in   Wales.   It   was   a   typically   Nonconformist   measure,  but  its  significance  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  first  legislation   in  over  two  centuries   to   treat  Wales  as  a  separate  entity   from  England.   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      ARTICLES   Dafydd  Tudur   17   Michael  D.  Jones  acknowledged  that  the  Act  was  an  important  recognition   of   Wales’s   national   status,   but   he   also   argued   that   the   redress   of   Nonconformist   grievances   would   not   solve   the   social,   economic   and   cultural  issues  that  needed  to  be  addressed  in  Wales.  But  Wales’s  interests   in  parliament,  however,  seemed  almost  exclusively  Nonconformist.  Even   when  the  ‘national  awakening’  seemed  to  have  increased  appreciation  of   Welsh  cultural  identity  and  evoked  a  desire  among  Welsh  MPs  to  form  a   standing  committee  to  discuss  issues  specifically  relating  to  Wales  (an  idea   that  was  rejected  by  Parliament  in  1888),  there  was  still  a  reluctance  to   demand   full   national   self-­‐government   for   Wales   and   the   campaign   for   disestablishment  remained  the  priority.  As  John  Morley,  Liberal  statesman   and  journalist,  asserted  in  1890,   ‘Home  Rule   is  not  more  essentially  the   Irish  national  question  than  disestablishment  and  disendowment  are  the   Welsh  national  question.’  By  the  1880s,  the  ‘national  awakening’  seemed   to  have  provided  fertile  soil  for  Michael  D.  Jones’s  aspirations  for  Wales.   The   Independent   minister   David   Stephen   Davies   noted   in   1892   that   Michael  D.  Jones  was  by  then  ‘considered  a  moderate  man  because  public   opinion  has  progressed  so  quickly   in  recent  years’.  Yet   Jones  would  not   have  agreed  with  the  correspondent  who  claimed  that  Wales  was  a  picture   of  health;  when  he  retired  from  public  life  in  1892,  his  views  on  national   self-­‐government  were  still  considerably  more  radical  than  those  of  most   Nonconformists.  Wales  as  a  nation  had  by  the  1890s  become  visible  within   British   politics,   but   this   ‘revival   in   strength   and   in   energy’,   as   it   was   described  in  Y  Gwyliedydd,  was  underpinned  by  the  belief  that  its  interests   would   be   adequately   represented   within   and   by   the   British   state.   The   ‘awakening’   led   to   important   developments   that   validated   claims   of   nationhood,  but  another  thirty  years  would  pass  before  a  political  party  –   Plaid   Genedlaethol   Cymru   –   would   be   formed   to   advance   Michael   D.   Jones’s  nationalist  aspirations  for  Wales.