James Larkin’s Correct Date of Birth: 1874
[“Jim Larkin’s earliest years” was the title of an article by Desmond Greaves in the September 1980 issue of the “Irish Democrat”, in which Greaves established for the first time the correct date of Larkin’s birth, as he had done previously with James Connolly’s birth and birth-place. The article was preceded by the introduction below.]
Not far short of thirty years ago the “Irish Democrat” was the first to publish the true facts on the birth and childhood of James Connolly. Now we do the same for Larkin and show he was two years older than his biographers assumed him to be. The detailed proof of this conclusion, how it was arrived at, and what is its significance, is given in this article:
Jim Larkin’s Birth Date and Earliest Years
Opposite Clery’s department store in O’Connell Street, Dublin, stands a statue of the great labour leader James Larkin. By its position it commemorates the events of August 31st, 1913.
William Martin Murphy, Dublin’s boss of bosses, millionaire owner of the tramway system and the “Irish Independent”, had locked out all his employees who refused to leave the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union of which Larkin was founder and secretary. Larkin called a protest meeting which the authorities promptly proclaimed. Larkin declared he would be there “dead or alive”.
At the prescribed time he made his way into Murphy’s own Imperial Hotel, on the present side of Clery’s, and, heavily disguised, made his way on to a balcony. From here he began to speak. Immediately police hidden in side streets erupted. Hundreds of unarmed people who had no notion of attending a meeting were mercilessly clubbed and found themselves in hospital. This notorious baton charge set the pace for a struggle which in all lasted seven months.
That was 67 years ago. Today there is nothing in O’Connell Street to remind the passers-by of Murphy . . . except Larkin. The statue is inscribed with the supposed dates of Larkin’s birth and death. Unfortunately, however, the date of birth is not correct. Of course, it matters little in practice when exactly a man was born, or for that matter where he was born. What matters is what he does. But the circumstances of childhood can throw light on the character of a historical figure and, in the case of Larkin, to discover his birth and family circumstances would be to dispose once and for all of certain poisonous slanders which were disseminated by the employers’ kept press.
First let us consider what Larkin said himself. In his marriage registration he stated that he was 27 years of age on September 8th, 1903. He must therefore have been born between September 9th 1875 and September 8th 1876. But on census night, April 2nd 1911, he gave his age as 31. According to this he must have been born between April 3rd 1879 and April 2nd 1880. His wife’s age was first stated as 27, but this figure was crossed out and 31 substituted. The corrected figure agrees with the marriage particulars. But James’s figures are discrepant.
It might be thought that the Census, which is secret, would be more likely to contain the correct figure than the publicly-available marriage registration. But in fact both were wrong. It is an interesting fact that Larkin filled in the census form in Irish. It was, however, somewhat hesitant Irish. He stated that both he and his son Seamus spoke Irish and English. One imagines that Seamus was learning it at school and maybe passing some of it on to the father. With regard to birthplaces, Larkin stated that both he and his son Denis were born in Co. Down. This is true enough of Denis. Fintan, the youngest, was born in Dublin. Three of the family were born in England – the wife Elizabeth, the son Seamus and the sister Brigid, who was a schoolteacher.
Larkin died on January 30th 1947. According to the registration of his death he was 72. That is to say he must have been born between January 31st 1874 and January 30th 1875. So far the most careful searches in the Registry of Births in the Custom House, Dublin, have failed to locate any James Larkin born in the Co. Down which fulfil the requirements of the death registration, or indeed those of the marriage or the census. Moreover, I have a suspicion that Larkin himself was uncertain. Birth is, of course, a very important event in a man’s life. But I never heard of anybody who could remember it, still less remember the time and circumstances.
My reason for suspecting this is the fact is that when challenged in 1913 Larkin did not just publish his birth certificate and scatter the riff-raff who were traducing him. Of course there might well be other reasons which weighed heavily at the time. But here are the circumstances.
Scarcely had the lock-out begun when a new weekly appeared in Dublin. Its title was “The Toiler” and its purpose was to attack Larkin and his colleagues. Its editor was one McIntyre, Wexford-born son of a landlord’s agent, thrown out of Connolly’s party after three weeks’ membership, scab union operator, and doss-house manager. He was a rascal, though for all that somebody may choose at some time to attempt to rehabilitate him. He specialised in personal vilification. Many of the abusive nicknames used in later quarrels and ascribed to Larkin had their origin in McIntyre’s sheet. For example, William O’Brien, who had a deformed foot, was called “Hoofy”.
McIntyre made two charges against Larkin’s lineage. First that he was the son of the notorious informer Carey. Let him publish his birth certificate and disprove it. On the other hand he was the son of a Liverpool Orangeman. Let him publish his birth certificate and disprove that! The two charges were incompatible but McIntyre published “evidence” for both. He found a birth certificate in the name of James Larkin and a marriage certificate purporting to show that Larkin was married to the daughter of a prominent Liverpool businessman.
Larkin did not reply. Perhaps this was merely to refuse to submit to the blackmail. The London “Times” remarked that Larkin was under no obligation to disclose particulars of his upbringing in order to satisfy Mr McIntyre’s curiosity. But undoubtedly Larkin was hard pressed at some of his meetings when members of the Redmondite party would wave copies of “The Toiler” and ask him to refute its allegations.
In 1919 he was put on tried in the USA on the strange charge of “criminal anarchy”. He had helped to organise a break-away from the Socialist Party of America called the “Communist Labour Party”. Evidence that he was a bad character was supplied by the American consul in Dublin, and this was backed up by a birth certificate purporting to show that he was born in Liverpool on May 2nd 1879. I confess that I found the same entry in the register at St. Catherine’s House and that it took me in for a time. William O’Brien also used it. But in no case did Larkin offer an alternative. One would have thought that it would have helped him to show that the prosecution was malicious if he could disprove the authenticity of a vital document.
But whether Larkin knew or did not know, we must now begin the search for ourselves.
Larkin has had two biographers. R.M. Fox published his work in 1955. I happen to know from my acquaintance with Fox at that time that he did a considerable amount of work. Emmet Larkin produced his more ambitious work in 1965. But Larkin’s is really the earlier work for it was produced in the early ‘fifties as a post-graduate thesis. There are moreover important particulars in Fox that are absent from Emmett Larkin.
Fox and Emmett Larkin agree that the birthplace was Liverpool. Both give the year as 1876. Emmett Larkin gives a precise date, January 21st. But he cannot have searched the register of births. I was unable to find any such entry myself and I have a letter from the Registrar in Liverpool saying that he cannot find any such entry in that city. So we must turn to the incidental information provided by Fox who had the journalist’s nose for significant detail.
Fox says that Larkin’s father, James Larkin, married Mary McNulty. This is of tremendous importance. He said that the family were settled in Liverpool and that James’s father Bernard joined them when he lost his farm in the north of Ireland. He says James was the youngest son and that his brothers were named Bernard, Hugh and Patrick. James’s eldest son was also called Hugh. James, the future labour leader coming second. These were followed by Margaret, Delia and Peter. Moreover James, the second son, attended “St. Chipping Street” School in Liverpool.
The present-day maps of Liverpool show no Chipping Street, even in a decanonised condition. But the list of Catholic schools in an old telephone directory shows that the important church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel had attached to it a school listed as in Chipping Street. The obvious thing was to go and look for it. I have to thank Mr Bernard Morgan with his detailed knowledge of Liverpool geography for driving me out to Toxteth where we found the school, still functioning, and the name Chipping Street high on a reservoir wall. One presumes that mail is now delivered to High Park Street and that for Post Office purposes Chipping Street is defunct.
From this to the archdiocesan records. The headmaster’s log begins only in 1886. There is, however, a baptismal register. In it we find the record of the birth of Bridget Larkin, daughter of James and Mary Ann Larkin. Then comes the decisive entry, the birth of “Petrus, filius Jacobi et Mariae Annae olim McNulty”. He was born on August 1st, 1880.
Bridget and Peter were confirmed at Mount Carmel but there is no sign of James, and though there is a Hugh I doubt if he is the right youngster. Bridget is of course Delia. She was entered as such on the census form. She married Patrick Colgan, a Citizen Army man, under the same name. Variants of spelling can of course be disregarded. Those who know the history and circumstances of the Irish in Britain will be able to guess why she preferred the other name. It was not her confirmation name. This was Mary. It was moreover a name with strong classical associations. Both of Larkin’s biographers agree that Bernard gave his children a better than usual education. But he was a illiterate himself and one wonders how his biographer knew. There was another child called Delia Larkin born in Toxteth Park in 1881. If you survived (and she is the only Delia in volumes of the index) Bridget may have known her and fancied the name.
The next thing to go for is obviously the marriage of James Larkin to Mary McNulty. This took place on July 24th 1871 in the neighbouring parish, at St. Patrick’s Chapel, also in Toxteth Park. This is the famous old church built early in the 19th century when the Irish influx was beginning. At the time of his marriage James was aged 22 and worked as a quarryman. His father was Bernard Larkin, a labourer, and her father was Peter McNulty, also a labourer. So Peter had been called after his maternal grandfather. Perhaps that explains the “olim McNulty”.
According to the secular register James Larkin was born on February 4th, 1874.
It is not clear where Emmett Larkin got the date January 21st. Birth years are often forgotten; birthdays are not. The dates January 21st and February 4th are exactly two weeks apart. Fox states that soon after James’s birth Mary Ann was summoned to Newry where her father was dying. Could old Bernard have made an error of two weeks? Until reason is given the registered date should stand. For one thing it is compatible with the death certificate, whereas January 21st is not. There is no evidence yet for the trip to Newry and it is surrounded by other questionable assumptions.
For example, Fox claims that when Mary Ann returned to Liverpool she left James behind her so that the first five years of his life were spent in Ireland. This is rather like something out of the Mabinogion. All who heard Larkin speak agree that he dropped his aitches. He would scarcely have done so if he had learned to speak in Co. Down.
Where did Larkin’s parents come from? On census night 1871, three months before his marriage, James was living with his father, Bernard Larkin, at No.3 House in 42 Court, Henderson Street, Toxteth Park. The head of the household was Patrick Duffey, who was married to James’s sister Ann. All three, Bernard, Patrick and James, were born in Ireland. James was a quarryman and Patrick Duffey a dock labourer. Bernard was aged 68. That the family had arrived comparatively recently is shown by the fact that a child of eight was born in Ireland, while a child of one year was born in Liverpool. Bernard was a widower and this may account for his emigration to join his children.
The area was certainly a slum. The census records few skilled tradesmen dispersed among the ubiquitous dock labourers, but an assortment of charwomen, washerwomen, scavengers and night soil workers. A high proportion of the heads of households were born in Ireland. The present New Henderson Street is an amalgam of the original with Wolfe Street which ran parallel.
According to the marriage certificate Ann lived at Sessions Row. She was not there on census night. But there was a Hugh McNulty, aged 31, dock labourer, at No. 22. He was born in Ireland, was unmarried and a lodger. It seems reasonable to suppose, if Fox’s story of the courtship is right, namely that Ann crossed to Liverpool to join James, that she stayed with her brother immediately before her marriage.
Sessions Row was also in an Irish area, being indeed a continuation of the famous Foley Street, a hotbed of Fenianism. But the heads of households were mostly skilled tradesmen. Hugh’s fellow lodger was a book-keeper. There were cabinet-makers, stone-masons, ships’ stewards, boiler-makers, watchmakers, coopers and omnibus conductors. The majority was still labourers, but many of these were lodgers in the houses of skilled workers.
Fox gives the impression that Ann’s family were of a higher social status than James’s. He also suggests that she was an exceptionally strong-minded young lady. Her first son should have been called Bernard after his grandfather. She had him called Hugh, Hugh presumably being her brother. The second son was called after his father, but the third was called after her father. It will usually be found that the possessors or recent possessors of property are more interested in the naming of children than those otherwise placed. The enumerator in Kirkdale, moreover, quite frequently noted the part of Ireland these more important people came from.
Before drawing conclusions it may be of interest to note the peregrinations of the family. The eldest son, Hugh, was born on July 21st 1872 at 13 Shelley Street. The father was now a foundry labourer and continued at this work until his death at 17 Melville Street on February 15th 1888 (not 1887 as has been stated). Bridget was born on February 27th 1878 at No.2 Court, Fernie Street. Peter was born on August 12th 1880 at No.4 Court, Fernie Street. Mary Ann registered the births and consequently we have the variant spellings McNulty, McNalty and McAnulty.
The origins of Larkin’s politics can ow be seen. He lived in a predominantly Irish community. This is shown by the census and the parochial records. There were several Larkin families in Toxteth Park. There were also several McNulty families. Their interlocking is shown by the recurring names of patroni, patronae, and witnesses. In 1944 James Larkin Junior, the Labour TD, told me that he had “many relations in Liverpool”. But this community was essentially Irish in outlook.
Denvir cites a survey made in the middle 1860s which purports to show that one-third of the population of Liverpool at that time had been born in Ireland [John Denvir, The Irish in Britain, 1892]. Substitute a sixth and the number is still immense. W.J. Lowe in his study of Lancashire Fenianism says that Liverpool was its main centre, that the Irish population was in broad sympathy with it, and the IRB were particularly active in the dockland areas. Where Larkin got his Irish nationalism from is easily seen.
As for the Labour movement, the discovery that Larkin was two years older than he has been believed to be, means that he was 16 when the great 1890 dock strike paralysed the port. During that strike the head-teacher of Mount Carmel school wrote to the local newspapers denying rumours that his pupils were engaged in strike activities. But there is no smoke without a fire. Toxteth is built upon the rising ground above the Queens, Brunswick and Toxteth docks.
Larkin cannot possibly have escaped the influence of the strike and may well have already been working as a docker. Speaking in Dublin, years afterwards, he described his father’s introducing him to Michael Davitt during the strike. The father was of course dead. But Larkin knew Michael Davitt was in Liverpool and, as is known, it was he who finally settled the strike. Adding the two years to Larkin’s age makes intelligible stories otherwise rather difficult to believe. But that, and his work in the early Labour movement, must be another story, which we will tell in due course.
TAILPIECE
Peter Larkin was born on August 12th, 1880 according to the secular register, but on August 1st according to the parish register. He was registered on September 20th – long enough afterwards for a mistake to be made. Could something similar have occurred in the case of James, thus explaining the conflict of dates, January 21st and February 4th? Could it happen twice? It could and it did. James’s birth was on February 4th according to the secular register. Examination of the parish register shows that he was baptised on that date. He was born on January 28th. He was registered by Bernard on March 11th. Clearly the old man mistakenly registered the date of baptism. And this may be the origin of all the uncertainty. The date of James Larkin’s birth is January 28th 1874.
[The following additional point was penned in later in the “Irish Democrat” copy of this article: “at 42 Combermere Street”.]