the ends of the side members of the frame fore and aft, so that each machine can, if required, either be towed or tow another, and any “lame duck” will not obstruct the whole convoy, but can be dragged along to some point where it can be towed out of the way, and the rest can be allowed to proceed. Other points in the scheme have in view particularly the fact that the machines must be required to operate on very bad and possibly on very hilly roads, and may even be needed to make detours across country when roads are destroyed or entirely blocked. The chief points in this connection are the provision of high ground clearance, which must in no case be less than 12 inches, the stipulation as to size of wheels, which are rather larger than usually found on commercial vehicles, and various stipulations ensuring adequate protection of the mechanism from mud and dust. Generally speaking, these provisions constitute one of the principal difficulties in making the scheme successful, principally for the reason that large wheels imply a rather high loading platform, and this is objected to by many commercial concerns on the ground that it makes loading and unloading more difficult. On the other hand, larger wheels are better for the roads, and consequently it is within the bounds of possibility that trading concerns will presently be compelled by law to put up with their disadvantages. From the point of view of motor users in the Colonies, high ground clearance and large wheels are very valuable and even essential features. Consequently, the subsidy scheme works in well with many Colonial requirements, and manufacturers whose machines are accepted by the War Department probably depend for success of the type to no little extent upon the likelihood of orders from abroad. [Illustration: _“The Autocar” photograph._ SAURER MOTOR FIELD KITCHEN.] In the interests of the proper guarding of the mechanism from mud and dust, the experts of the War Department have considered it necessary to stipulate that all cars must be driven on the live-axle system either through bevel or worm gear. In the first instance, only the former was accepted, but more recently the worm drive, as exemplified by the products of its pioneers, Messrs. Dennis Bros., has met with approval. The point to be noted is that the chain drive--which, in the opinion of many manufacturers and also of many users both at home and abroad is unequalled for heavy work--is definitely debarred. Considerable antagonism to the scheme as a whole was thus created, and one is forced to the conclusion that the reasons for refusing the chain drive were not solely connected with the question of protecting from mud, but were possibly more concerned with the fact that, while a chain drive is probably quite as economical in maintenance as any live-axle drive, it requires rather more frequent adjustments and attention, and possibly small renewals.