THE TILFORD OAK.
[To Tax EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."1 SIR,—Will you allow me to protest against the assertion of your correspondent, "Ave atque Vale," in the Spectator of December 18th, that the Tilford Oak is only a hundred and forty years old ? The sole ground for this assertion lies in Cobbett's recollections of his boyhood, and we all know how very inaccurate such recollections very often are. It is an absolute impossibility that an oak, under any circumstances, should in the space of about fifty years increase in size from a " comparatively small tree" to one having a girth of 30 ft. The position of the present oak corresponds with that of the oak mentioned in the Monk's Charter, and it is most unlikely that a second oak should have been planted on the same spot as that occupied by the first, or that if it had been, it would have thriven in this extraordinary way. Braylay in his history of Surrey asserts that the present oak must be at least eight or nine hundred years old. The following questions suggest themselves : If the present oak is not historic, why does it remain the property of the Bishop of Winchester, who owns no other land within four miles distant ? Why did Cobbett remember this one particular oak from his childhood, and why did he ride many miles out of his way to see it in later years P—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. H. CROFTON.
Previous page
