[The above is not the same work as the one referred to in J. Y.'s Query, which makes a 12mo. volume of 292 pages (edit. 1781); whereas the reprint published by Darling is a tract of 16 pages. There is also a slight difference in the title-pages of each.] _Bigot._--What is the derivation of _bigot_? C. M. I. [Richardson suggests the following:--"The French at this day apply the word _bigot_ to one superstitiously religious; not certainly from the oath _be-got_, as Menage thinks, but rather from the A.-S. _bigan_, colere; and hence also _begine_, a religious woman. (Wachter in v. _Bein-Gott_.)" Cotgrave says, "Bigot, an old Norman word (signifying as much as '_de par Dieu_,' or our 'for God's sake') made good French, and signifying an hypocrite, or one that seemeth much more holy than he is: also, a scrupulous, or superstitious fellow." Speight says, "_Begin_, _bigot_, superstitious, hypocrite." Upon which Thynne remarks, "whiche sence I knowe y't maye somewhat beare, because y't sauorethe of the dispositione of those _Begins_ or _Beguines_, for that ys the true wrytinge."] Replies. AGE OF TREES; TILFORD OAK. (Vol. iv., p. 401., &c.) I hope your correspondent L., in his search for ancient trees, will not overlook the Great Oak at Tilford near Farnham, which is worth a visit for its size and beauty, if not for its antiquity. Mr. Brayley, in his _History of Surrey_, vol. v. p. 288., thus speaks of it:-- "In the Charter granted by Henry de Blois about the year 1250, to the monks of Waverley, he gives them leave to inclose their lands wherever they please, within these bounds, 'which extend,' says the record, 'from the Oak of Tilford, which is called the Kynghoc [a quercu de Tyleford quæ vocatur Kynghoc], by the king's highway towards Farnham, &c.' ... The Tilford Oak is still standing, and is known by its ancient appellation of the King's Oak: a name which it could not have obtained unless it had been of considerable age and growth at the time of the bishop's grant; and it may therefore be reasonably supposed to be 800 or 900 years old. It is a noble tree, and still flourishing apparently without decay." I very much doubt the identity of the present tree with the "King's Oak" of Henry de Blois. _First_, Because the present bounds of Waverley do not run within 300 yards of the tree; and the bounds are hardly likely to have been materially changed, inasmuch as the abbey lands are freehold and tithe-free, whereas the surrounding lands are copyhold and titheable. _Secondly_, because the tree itself appears still to be growing and vigorous. Cobbett describes it in his _Rural Rides_, p. 15., 1822, with his usual accuracy of observation: