File 50/1914 Pt 10 'Persian Gulf: Lighting and Buoying; Supply of Lighthouse Tender; the Nearchus' [‎39r] (82/470)

that are mentioned,
one engineer, one
54 crew.
J lie oiiginal proposals were Commander, three lieutenants,
assistant engineer, two warrant officers, three drivers, and
By his telegram of 1st April 1913, he reduced the annual cost of upkeep
to 5,000/. using coal, or 4,740/,. using oil. The letter* confirming the telegram
* Not received. * s not anion g the papers, so that it does
. . • 110 t appear how the 5,000Z. is made up,
but the reduction is said to lie due to the reduced number of lighthouses, and
therefore largely to reduced fuel expenditure.
In my minute of 14th July 1913 it was said that the annual cost of upkeep
(of vessels to design decided upon) would be less that 5 , 000 /, as stated by the
Director, Royal Indian Marine.
I he Viceroy s telegram of 13th November 1914, which forms the basis of
the present minute, gives complement of Commander, one lieutenant, two
sub-lieutenants, two engineers, one assistant surgeon, one gunner, one clerk,
and 58 crew. The cost is given as :—
£ s. d.
Establishment - - 2,930 8 0
Coal (oil), stores, &c. - - 2,733 14 8
5,664
The increase appears to he mainly due to pay of establishment, Avhich is
562/. 8 s. more than proposed in the estimate of 6,450/, in the Director, Royal
Indian Marine’s, letter of 18th January 1913. The complement was
presumably not increased in the estimate of 5,000/. in the telegram of 1st April
1913. The complement now recommended by the Director, Royal Indian
Marine, appears to have reverted to that originally proposed in his first letter
on the subject dated 31st August 1912, so that the present increase of 562/. 8 s.
requires explanation from India.
ENCLOSURE No. 4:
-Minute by the Naval Architect and Engineer
\ 2 th March 1915.
dated.
The original estimate of cost of upkeep given in the Government of India
telegram of 2nd November 1912 was superseded by the later estimates
contained in the Director, Royal Indian Marines, letter oi 18th January 1913,
and telegram of 1st April 1913. There is no reason why the discrepancy
between the estimate for pay of complement given in the telegiam of 13th
November 1914, amounting to 2,930/. 8 s., and the original estimate of 1 , 666 /,
13s. 4 d for practically the same complement, should not be referred to the
authorities in India, who alone are in a position to explain it.
The real point, however, which appears to require explanation is the increase
in the present estimate of 2,930/. 8 s. lor pay of complement o \ei ^ ® estima e
of 2.368/. given in the Director, Royal Indian Marine s, letter of 18th January
1913. The telegram of 1st April 1913 giving a total cost of upkeep of o,0001
also presumably contemplated the same complement as m the letter o] ; ^ l h
January, the savings being due to reduction in the vessel s services. I his
point also the authorities in India alone are m a position to explain.