[In the May/June edition of History Ireland a letter was published which contained a number of errors regarding the army career of John Connolly, brother of James. I wrote a response which was published in the next issue, the text of which is below.]
Sir,—With regard to ‘James Connolly in India?’ (Letters, HI 34.3, May/June 2026), John Connolly did not serve with the King’s Liverpool Regiment.
His army file (he used the name ‘James Reid’, not ‘John Reid’) shows that he was with the Border Regiment, serving a total of sixteen years. The regiment was created in 1881 under the Childers reforms.
It not known when John Connolly enlisted, but if it was prior to that year it was more than likely with the 34th (Cumberland) Regiment of Foot.
The Scottish link with the King’s Liverpool, referenced with such authority by Greaves’s informants, dates instead from 1900, with the formation of the 8th Scottish Volunteer Battalion of the King’s Liverpool Regiment (the ‘Liverpool Scottish’), when John Connolly was in Edinburgh and active in socialist politics.
Furthermore, he never served with the Edinburgh City Artillery – known after the 1907 Haldane reforms as the 1st Edinburgh Royal Garrison Artillery (Volunteers) – nor did he appear in uniform at a 1913 meeting in Dundee.
This was not possible, as he did not re-enlist until 2 December 1914, when he joined the 4th Royal Scots 2nd Supernumerary Company Battalion (Queen’s Edinburgh Rifles).
He was posted to guard duty at Stobs military camp, Harwick, until 1915, when he was struck down by illness.
He never recovered and died on 22 June 1916 at the age of 54, one month after his brother’s execution. The 1913 story is completely made up.
Finally, the origin of the myth of James Connolly serving in India lies with John Lyng and William O’Brien.
It is not, as your previous correspondent suggests, the result of confusion with John Connolly’s army career.
Lyng told O’Brien in 1951 that Connolly himself mentioned at a meeting in New York that he served in India—only for Lyng to later tell O’Brien to burn the letter, having lost faith in his own memory and powers of recall.
O’Brien, of course, kept the letter and later used the myth in order to appear to have been closer to Connolly than was actually the case.—Yours etc.,
CONOR McCABE
Editor, The lost and early writings of James Connolly, 1889–1898
Conor McCabe 