Decoding the IRA (31 page)

Twomey reminded him that they had met in Dublin subsequent to the letter and that he had also been ill in January, but he was also fed up with George: ‘From the attitude you have taken up I am quite agreeable if you wish to square up everything [in London].'
¹¹⁸
However, George got over his anger and continued his work.

In the meantime Twomey asked the IRA's finance and accounts officer to investigate George's finances, writing: ‘These accounts appear to be very mixed up.'
¹¹⁹
Confusion was caused by the way George transferred
money between his accounts, one he called the General Army account, another the D/I [Department of Intelligence] account.
¹²⁰
Finally Twomey asked him to ‘make out the full [D/I] account' from its inception twelve months previously, and in his quietly persistent way added: ‘You need not unduly rush yourself in doing this.'
¹²¹

George was very careful with his personal security and made sure that anyone wishing to contact him should go to the appropriate meeting place or contact address. In February he wrote to Twomey: ‘A lady called at my office in … [word deleted from the text] enquiring for me and called again on the following day and told the liftboy that she was from Ireland and wanted to see me. Can you give me an idea as to who she was?'
¹²²
Another time Twomey told Seán MacBride to call on George, but George felt that the address he gave him shouldn't have been given to MacBride:
‘Only one, the Dr [Andy Cooney] can be trusted, all the others are very talkative but ye seem to think differently. It is useless taking precautions if ye insist in doing things like this.'
¹²³

On 12 May 1927 Scotland Yard raided the All-Russian Cooperative Society, Ltd. (Arcos) headquarters in London, which was the centre for Soviet espionage in Britain. With follow-up police raids occurring across the city, George reported that
‘things are bad here'
and that he had destroyed incriminating supplies in his possession.
¹²⁴

In October Twomey wrote to George that Andy Cooney was going to move temporarily to London to complete his medical studies:
‘Mr Smith [Andy Cooney] intends going to London to complete his studies. [He] will probably cross [over] this weekend. He wants you to think of one or two suitable places where he might stay, he will call to Number 8, perhaps he could stay there. Fix nothing definite about digs until he sees you.'
¹²⁵
George was unhappy with Cooney's presence and felt that headquarters had sent him to oversee his work; in addition, there could already have been animosity between the two arising from the previous letter sent to George telling him to close up his London operation.

George complained to Twomey that Cooney had told him that:
‘GHQ are in a better position to know what to do than I am, and [he] wanted to know if I wanted to be a dictator in this business. I told him I could bat anytime I liked. He asked if this was a threat and said the work
would get on very well without me
. I would like a reply to this … as soon as possible, and if your opinions are the same as his the sooner you let me know the better.
I told you once I would have nothing more to do with ‘Smith' and can give many reasons, if you want them. I don't like to be offensive and will reserve a lot more than I have to say. There is one thing I would like you to know; that I have forgotten more about this work than ‘Smith' is ever likely to learn.'
¹²⁶
George was foolish to think he could get Twomey to side with him against Cooney. Twomey replied:
‘I have nothing to say to any private quarrel ‘Smith' and you may have and I am not interfering. You have no right to demand from me what my opinion is on any views expressed by ‘Smith'. No more than on those expressed by any resident in London, say Mr Baldwin [the prime minister]. I am not afraid of dictators as they can be disposed of in a certain way.'
Following this unusually aggressive outburst from Twomey, he ended in a more conciliatory fashion in non-crypted text: ‘I am very sorry for this friction and I feel that it could be avoided if there were a little “give and take” on both sides.'
¹²⁷

George's correspondence ends in January 1928 with what is most likely a reference to Andy Cooney or possibly Seán MacBride. Writing to Moss Twomey he comments:
‘Your infallible friend called and gave me your messages. I thought I told you, and I know I told him that he was to get in touch with me through other channels.'
¹²⁸

The Merchant

One of the shady characters that George dealt with was an arms dealer named Fitzgerald, whom the IRA referred to as the ‘Merchant'.

In 1926, the IRA in London ordered an assortment of equipment from the ‘Merchant' and gave him a total of £598 and 4 shillings. This included £200 belonging to ‘James', for a ‘phone' – presumable some type of military communications wireless or similar device. Of the £398 belonging to the IRA, £36 was for a dozen adaptors for an army service rifle and £12 and 4 shillings for ammunition. When George returned to London following his visit to Ireland at Christmas, he cancelled the IRA's order. However, despite ‘continually pressing' Fitzgerald, he received neither his money back nor the ‘phone' for the Soviets.
¹²⁹

In late January 1927 Twomey wrote to George:
‘Did you get back all or any of that £350
[
sic
]?
We are in a desperate way for cash.'
¹³⁰
George replied: ‘When I came back [from Ireland] I approached him and he promised [to] let me have some [of the money] but he has not kept his promise … If I do not get some satisfaction from him soon I will use a little pressure.'
¹³¹
Twomey urged him on: ‘You must put pressure on your friend for that cash. Tell him plainly you must have it at once. If he refuses what pressure do you propose to put on him?'
¹³²

George was reluctant to act: ‘I don't think the man will refuse to pay. He seems to be playing for time and told me yesterday that he would fix the whole business up early next week, which I doubt. If he refuses I think it is up to you to decide on what kind of pressure we use.'
¹³³
In the interim George was able to sell an ‘instrument' he had belonging to the ‘Merchant' and recoup £48 of the debt.
¹³⁴

Twomey responded: ‘As you know this person and I do not, you would be the best judge as to whether moral pressure would do, or if some physical application would be necessary. Has he any property which could be seized and removed? I would not like for the present to threaten exposure.'
¹³⁵

George feigned the intention of taking decisive action and wrote in March: ‘Unless he fixes this up before the end of next week we will be compelled to take very drastic action. I take it I am at liberty to use any amount of pressure which I may think suitable.'
¹³⁶

‘Yes, you have full permission to take whatever steps you think necessary to recover the money,' Twomey replied.
¹³⁷
However, the ‘Merchant' called their bluff and in April George merely handed over a letter demanding payment: ‘Your attitude at the present moment only confirms our previous suspicions that it has not been your intention at any time to deal with us in an honest and straightforward manner … Our representative [the OC. Britain] appears to have been entirely deceived by your statement that you had paid the money to the manufacturers as soon as it was handed to you … We consider this to have been an extremely despicable action on your part and we would inform you that we will be compelled to take very drastic steps to recover the money.'
¹³⁸

With nothing happening, Twomey wrote:
‘If Fitzgerald has not paid up, can you kidnap him or have him fired at, without wounding him
at first? His business place could easily be entered over [the] gate or wall
. Have you looked up if any legal action could be taken and a writ issued against him?'
¹³⁹
Twomey must have had great faith in the British justice system if he thought the IRA could sue an arms dealer who had defrauded them over a highly illegal transaction! George replied: ‘Have noted your suggestions',
¹⁴⁰
but Twomey continued to prod him: ‘There must be no squeamishness in dealing with that man.'
¹⁴¹
George meekly replied: ‘[The ‘Merchant'] stated that at the moment he could not pay back the money. There is, so he says, a lot of money due to him, and as soon as it comes in, he will let us have the amount due, which I doubt very much.'
¹⁴²
Twomey kept pushing George to physically threaten the ‘Merchant', but George may have had no stomach for the job or feared being exposed to the police: ‘How do you think I can tackle this business alone?
¹⁴³
Here I am without a job and money, borrowing all over the place, and having no one to assist in helping me do anything. I know that I am personally responsible, but, please do not expect [me] to do the impossible.'
¹⁴⁴
Twomey answered: ‘You will recollect when I was speaking to you I stated I realised the difficulty, and offered to send Agents to do so. You replied that you would be able to do so there, and actually mentioned the Agents you would employ to do so. I am prepared to risk expense rather than let him get away with it. If you prepare the business and let me know I am still prepared to do this. I never expected that you yourself should do all the work.'
¹⁴⁵

Whether the ‘Merchant' ever paid up or not is not known; however, the issue certainly wasn't settled by October 1927 when Twomey again asked George to ‘insist' on Fitzgerald making an immediate payment, and George replied that he had met with him several times to ask for the money.
¹⁴⁶

An interesting question is: who was the ‘Merchant'? And the answer leads us on a trail back to the Free State cabinet or Executive Council. What we do know from the documents was that the ‘Merchant's' last name was Fitzgerald. And coincidentally there was an arms dealer in London at the time, Francis FitzGerald – with a history of dishonesty – who was known to have dealt with the Free State army and to have had contact with the IRA.
¹⁴⁷
Francis W. FitzGerald was also the brother of Desmond FitzGerald, an influential member of the Free State's Executive Council and the Minister for External Affairs.

Francis lived in London where he owned a company, Senior Crozier & Co., which ‘professed to be engaged in the sale of chemicals'. Through the business he supplied munitions and explosives, including potassium chloride to the Free State's national army during the Civil War (1922–3). In 1925 the Free State's Committee of Public Accounts reported serious irregularities in these transactions to the Dáil. The committee alleged that FitzGerald sold thirty-two tons of potassium chloride to the army for £56 per ton, even though the deliveries took place over the course of several months when the market price of the chemical fell to only £28 a ton. Additionally, when the explosives were received they were not of the promised quality and were described as ‘useless'.

The army also gave him a deposit of £2,250 towards the purchase of 10,000 rifles, which ‘disappeared'. FitzGerald claimed that he gave the money to the arms manufacturer Horace Soley as a deposit. However, the weapons were never delivered and the government didn't get the deposit back. FitzGerald was unable to produce a verifiable receipt and prove that he ever handed the money over to Horace Soley. In an interesting parallel, the ‘Merchant' had told the IRA that he had handed their money over to an arms manufacturer and was unable to get it back.

FitzGerald additionally agreed to purchase five Hotchkiss machine guns for the army at £750 apiece, but in fact he charged £1,000 each, which the government paid. On top of this there was no record of the machine guns having ever been received. The Public Accounts Committee raised questions about the army's order of 2,500 revolvers. FitzGerald had initially quoted a price of £2 each, but in the end charged £3 5 shillings each.

Eventually the army took legal action against FitzGerald. However, despite the Free State's strong case, the government settled with him on extremely favourable terms. They paid him the £2,250 he claimed to have deposited with Horace Soley for the rifles, and in the event that he recovered the money they agreed to pay his legal costs and let him keep half of the remaining sum. This was despite the fact that they were under no obligation to assume liability. In all FitzGerald received £19,700 from the government. No wonder Tom Johnson, the leader of the parliamentary Labour party, called this ‘the most extraordinary settlement that I can conceive' and added: ‘Before this settlement took place, there should
have been, at least, one resignation from the Executive Council.'

The army's intended use for the rifles in 1922 was also rather murky; it appears that they planned to supply them to joint pro- and anti-Treaty IRA units engaged in a cross-border campaign against the new state of Northern Ireland. This failed campaign was organised in the lead-up to the Civil War with the connivance of Michael Collins, partially with a view to help preserve IRA unity and so prevent Civil War. Ernest Blythe, the Minister for Finance, euphemistically commented: ‘After the Treaty not one of these purchases should have taken place', but that at the time ‘many people took up an equivocal position'.
¹⁴⁸

In London FitzGerald didn't exactly keep a low profile. P. A. Murray stated that when he was OC. Britain he was ‘in touch with Desmond FitzGerald's brother' in London.
¹⁴⁹
Later, in January 1925 FitzGerald's gun dealer's licence was revoked and he gave the court an undertaking to return revolvers in his possession to the Free State's high commissioner in Britain.
¹⁵⁰
Finally, in 1933 he was described as a works manager from Kensington and was charged with the possession of two automatic pistols, three revolvers and ammunition. He got off rather lightly, being fined £5, and the magistrate ordered the confiscation of the weapons.
¹⁵¹
Based on this evidence it seems highly probable that the ‘Fitzgerald' who defrauded the IRA in 1927 was Francis FitzGerald, the brother of Desmond FitzGerald, the Free State minister.
¹⁵²