21⁄4 inches for bark, its contents are therefore 87 feet by 24} 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 1891, 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 111⁄2 feet, a considerable part of the top having been, as I was told, broken off by the wind. I measured it again carefully in June 1908, when it was 110 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 1860 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. I 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 ro 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 130 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 1 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 11 feet 3 inches in girth, This has now lost its leader, and has remarkably pendent branches, with leaves conspicuously white
1 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 | 1860 | 1862 | 1867 | 1868 | 1871 |
| Height in feet | 18 | 40 | 481⁄2 | 621⁄2 | 65 | 78 | 85 | 93 | 95 | 100 |
Cf. Gard. Chron. 1843, p. 808; 1846, p. 661; 1851, p. 2463 1853, p. 3433 1860, 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 1 inch. I cannot account for the difference.
3 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.
