Socialists, republicans, trade unionists and communists will know of Larkins role in the 1907 Belfast strike by Dockers who were members of the National Union of Dock Labourers (NUDL) and the militant speeches he gave encouraging the strike and urging the men to victory. Women from Gallaghers tobacco factory also joined the dispute as Gallagher was also the owner of the Steam Packet Shipping Company who the Dockers were in dispute with. Larkin fell out with the union’s General Secretary, James Sexton, and in 1909 Jim Larkin formed the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU) which soon recruited Dockers from the NUDL, becoming the largest trade union in Ireland.
Perhaps Jim Larkin is best known for his leadership of the ITGWU and many smaller unions in the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout with his first lieutenant, James Connolly. Larkin was also a founder of the Irish Labour Party in 1912 along with James Connolly, William O’Brien and Richard O’Carroll. The problem I faced many years ago while researching my book about the lockout and the British coal miner’s strike was Larkin's place of birth.
The popular belief is Jim Larkin was born at 41 Cobermere Street, Toxteth, Liverpool but is this factual? While researching for a book some years ago I discovered an alternative belief coming from Larkin’s own grandson also called Jim Larkin. In his book, In the Footsteps of Big Jim; a Family Biography, the family tree clearly shows Jim Larkin, the union chief also known as Big Jim, was actually born in County Down, Ireland and not Liverpool. The Liverpool version, supported by most, appears to have evolved from the late historian, C. Desmond Greaves. Greaves was a very competent and able historian and he based this assumption on evidence available at the time which was correct. Larkin’s Baptismal Papers were found in Liverpool so Greaves, naturally, concluded the future union leader must have been born there. Finding such papers would certainly indicate Liverpool as ‘Big Jim’s’ place of birth, but was it? ‘Big Jim’s’ grandson argues not and produces evidence to support the County Down belief as his grandfather’s place of birth. His proof is compelling and more up to date than the baptismal papers in Liverpool and should certainly be taken seriously.
Apart from the family tree in the front of the book Jim Larkin (the grandson) admits his grandfather was reared in Liverpool but was not born there. ‘Big Jim’s’ mother was apparently heavily pregnant carrying the future union agitator. A relative, ‘Big Jim’s’ mother’s father, had taken seriously ill in the township of Tamnaharry near Buren County Down Ireland. His mother, Mary, arrived feeling unwell from the crossing, Liverpool to Warrenpoint, and almost immediately gave birth to Jim and apparently the family support this claim as Jim Larkin’s place of birth. To support the Tamnaharry place of birth Jim Larkin himself at his trial in the USA for trade union agitation with the ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ (IWW) gave his place of birth as Tamnaharry, Ireland, not Liverpool England!
The popular belief is Jim Larkin was born at 41 Cobermere Street, Toxteth, Liverpool but is this factual? While researching for a book some years ago I discovered an alternative belief coming from Larkin’s own grandson also called Jim Larkin. In his book, In the Footsteps of Big Jim; a Family Biography, the family tree clearly shows Jim Larkin, the union chief also known as Big Jim, was actually born in County Down, Ireland and not Liverpool. The Liverpool version, supported by most, appears to have evolved from the late historian, C. Desmond Greaves. Greaves was a very competent and able historian and he based this assumption on evidence available at the time which was correct. Larkin’s Baptismal Papers were found in Liverpool so Greaves, naturally, concluded the future union leader must have been born there. Finding such papers would certainly indicate Liverpool as ‘Big Jim’s’ place of birth, but was it? ‘Big Jim’s’ grandson argues not and produces evidence to support the County Down belief as his grandfather’s place of birth. His proof is compelling and more up to date than the baptismal papers in Liverpool and should certainly be taken seriously.
Apart from the family tree in the front of the book Jim Larkin (the grandson) admits his grandfather was reared in Liverpool but was not born there. ‘Big Jim’s’ mother was apparently heavily pregnant carrying the future union agitator. A relative, ‘Big Jim’s’ mother’s father, had taken seriously ill in the township of Tamnaharry near Buren County Down Ireland. His mother, Mary, arrived feeling unwell from the crossing, Liverpool to Warrenpoint, and almost immediately gave birth to Jim and apparently the family support this claim as Jim Larkin’s place of birth. To support the Tamnaharry place of birth Jim Larkin himself at his trial in the USA for trade union agitation with the ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ (IWW) gave his place of birth as Tamnaharry, Ireland, not Liverpool England!
It was not only members of ‘Big Jim’s’ family who asserted the County Down place but also the “Chief Superintendent of the Detective Branch at Dublin Castle wrote to the Minister of Justice on 18th December 1924 about a meeting he had with Colonel Carter of Scotland Yard who enclosed a history of the Irish Workers League and its founder, James Larkin. He enclosed the following statement: "James Larkin, about whose birthplace there is some difference of opinion, was born near Newry County Down in 1876” (Larkin P7). The Newry and Mourne Museum according to the 1911 census stated Jim Larkin was born near Newry County Down. James Plunket Kelly while writing some articles for the Daily Express confirmed that “Jim was born near Newry” (ibid). There are several other assertions that Jim Larkin was in fact born in County Down but I think I have cited enough.
On the basis of these statements including those of Jim Larkin’s family it looks like the Liverpool belief as his place of birth is erroneous. The problem is this belief, albeit in hindsight possibly wrong, has stood the test of time and now has become too much trouble for many to question. But question this likely wrong assertion in history is important otherwise our picture of history will be wrong. Of course, one thing would sort this conundrum out once and for all, and that is a birth certificate which would state beyond doubt where the future union leader was born! The problem with this apparently obvious conclusion is birth certificates back in the 19th century did not exist! For me, if Tamnaharry was the place of birth Jim Larkin himself gave at his trial that is good enough for me. Members of his family, including his grandson, all claim this as the place of birth of ‘Big Jim’. There are just too many statements in support of the County Down view to ignore. Most historians still go with the Liverpool place of birth of ‘Big Jim’ including Wikipedia on the internet, though on a couple of occasions this avenue of information I have found to be not factual.
I believe the Liverpool place of birth has stood the test of time but is increasingly looking erroneous and misguided. With the evidence available in the days of C. Desmond Greaves it was perfectly logical to come to the Liverpool conclusion, but that appears wrong and begins to look like revisionism. There is certainly a huge question mark over the Liverpool claim in light of new information! For me the evidence supporting Tamnaharry outweighs the theories about Liverpool. Baptised in Scouse land, yes most certainly. Born there? Doubtful. Looking less and less likely! The Liverpool theory may well be correct but Jim Larkin junior in his Family Biography book is adamant that his grandfather was born in Tamnaharry, near Burren County Down. What do others think, I’d be interested to hear?
On the basis of these statements including those of Jim Larkin’s family it looks like the Liverpool belief as his place of birth is erroneous. The problem is this belief, albeit in hindsight possibly wrong, has stood the test of time and now has become too much trouble for many to question. But question this likely wrong assertion in history is important otherwise our picture of history will be wrong. Of course, one thing would sort this conundrum out once and for all, and that is a birth certificate which would state beyond doubt where the future union leader was born! The problem with this apparently obvious conclusion is birth certificates back in the 19th century did not exist! For me, if Tamnaharry was the place of birth Jim Larkin himself gave at his trial that is good enough for me. Members of his family, including his grandson, all claim this as the place of birth of ‘Big Jim’. There are just too many statements in support of the County Down view to ignore. Most historians still go with the Liverpool place of birth of ‘Big Jim’ including Wikipedia on the internet, though on a couple of occasions this avenue of information I have found to be not factual.
I believe the Liverpool place of birth has stood the test of time but is increasingly looking erroneous and misguided. With the evidence available in the days of C. Desmond Greaves it was perfectly logical to come to the Liverpool conclusion, but that appears wrong and begins to look like revisionism. There is certainly a huge question mark over the Liverpool claim in light of new information! For me the evidence supporting Tamnaharry outweighs the theories about Liverpool. Baptised in Scouse land, yes most certainly. Born there? Doubtful. Looking less and less likely! The Liverpool theory may well be correct but Jim Larkin junior in his Family Biography book is adamant that his grandfather was born in Tamnaharry, near Burren County Down. What do others think, I’d be interested to hear?
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments