828 The Trees of Great Britain and Ireland 



2i inches for bark, its contents are therefore 87 feet by 24i inches, making 355 cubic 

 feet, instead of 469, as stated in Quarterly Journal of Forestry, i. 107 (1907). 



At the time of the Conifer Conference in 189 1, a tree^ at Dropmore was stated 

 to have been then 120 feet by 11 feet; but I measured this tree in 1905 and could 

 not make it more than 107 feet by i li feet, a considerable part of the top havmg 

 been, as I was told, broken off by the wind. I measured it again carefully m June 

 1908, when it was no feet by 12 feet in girth. 



At Walcot there is a very large tree planted in 1842, of which the Earl of Powis 

 gave me a series of measurements. The first taken in i860 was 74 feet by 7 feet ; 

 the second in 1872, 85 feet by 8 feet 10 inches; the third in 1892, 107 feet by 12 feet 

 9 inches ; the fourth in April 1906, taken with a theodolite, was given as 122 feet by 

 15 feet 6 inches ; all the girths taken at 4 feet. The cubic contents were 393 feet. 



1 measured what I believed to be the same tree carefully from both sides, in March 

 1906, and made it 114 feet by 14 feet 2 inches at 5 feet, and noticed that the top 

 had been somewhat broken. Thus it is evident in both these trees that after they had 

 attained about sixty years old, the height increased much more slowly. 



There are two trees at Powis Castle, one of which on the rabbit bank, 

 near the park gate, I made from 112 to 115 feet by 11 feet 10 inches (this is the 

 mean of two measurements from opposite sides as the tree ^ leans a good deal), and 

 the other in a thick plantation, close to a pond, which, though I cannot, owing to 

 its position, be confident that it is over 1 30 feet, may be 5 feet or more higher, and 

 is more likely to increase in height than any Douglas fir that I have seen. It is 

 only 9 feet 5 inches in girth and quite the finest timber tree of the sort I know in 

 England.^ 



There is a tree at Highclere which, in 1903, was about 100 feet by 13 feet 8 

 inches. At Barton, Suffolk, a tree planted in 1831 measured in 1904, 107 feet high 

 by 10 feet i inch in girth, and, while beautifully clothed to the base, was rather thin 

 at the top with a divided leader. At Bury Hill, near Dorking, are perhaps the oldest 

 and largest trees in Surrey, which, as Mr. R. Barclay told me, were planted by his 

 father about 1832. The largest in 1908 measured 104 feet by 12 feet 2 inches, and 

 appeared to have lost its leader recently. 



At Albury, Sussex, there are two trees, which in 1904 measured 95 feet by 6 feet 



2 inches and 82 feet by 8 feet 3 inches. At Cassiobury, Herts, there is another, 

 which, according to the label, was planted in 1830, and had attained in 1904, 

 99 feet in height and 1 1 feet 3 inches in girth. This has now lost its leader, 

 and has remarkably pendent branches, with leaves conspicuously white 



^ The tree at Dropmore, raised from seed, sown in the mid-winter of 1827, was planted out in 1829, and has shown 

 the following growth : — 



Measured 1837 1843 1846 1851 1853 i860 1862 1867 1868 1871 



Height in feet 18 40 48^ 62^ 65 78 85 93 95 100 



Cf. Gard. Chron. 1843, p. 808 ; 1846, p. 661 ; 185 1, p. 246 ; 1853, p. 343 ; i860, p. 854 ; 1867, p. 808 ; 1868, p. 465 ; 

 1871, p. 1360. 



2 Lord Powis had this tree measured in 1908, by a man climbing, as 127 feet by 12 feet i inch. I cannot account for 

 the difference. 



' I measured this tree again in July 1908, and having found a spot from which I could see the top, am confident that 

 it is more than 130 feet high. It had increased 5 inches in girth in two years. 



