gave these measurements, it was only 13 feet round the trunk at the base when it was felled, and was so completely rotten it must soon have fallen. Miller records that three of the trees began producing cones about 1732, and that in his time the seeds ripened, and germinated freely, so it is probable that many plants in England are descendants of the Chelsea trees. That these were actually the first to be grown in England there is not much doubt. Evelyn regrets in his “Sylva” the absence of the cedars in England. The only trees which have put forth rival claims to the Chelsea ones are those of Bretby and Enfield. The Bretby one is undoubtedly very old, but there is no early reference to it in histories which mention the Enfield trees, and the famous one at Hendon, traditionally planted by Queen Elizabeth and blown down in 1779, and a few others; and there is no contemporary evidence of the date of its planting to warrant the assumption that it was before 1683. The Enfield tree in the garden of Robert Uvedale was said, in 1823, by Henry Phillips, to be about 156 years old, therefore older than the Chelsea ones by some six years; but there is no evidence to corroborate this. When Gibson describes the Garden in 1691, he makes no mention of it, and it seems unlikely he would have omitted such an important tree. There exists much correspondence with Uvedale and botanists of his time, but in none of the letters or early notices is the cedar mentioned before Ray’s note of the Chelsea trees, or even referred to as the first planted in England, so it seems the Chelsea trees’ claim to be the first is fairly established.