THE TREES OF THE POST-GLACIAL FOREST BEDS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LIVERPOOL. By T. Mellard Reade, C.E., F.G.S., F.R.I.B.A. [READ MARCH 7TH, 1878.] WITH a view of testing the truth of the assertion, made by several of those who have examined the submarine forests in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, that none of the roots of the stumps of trees, so plentifully scattered over the shore, penetrate the blue clay or silt below the peat, I employed a couple of men to dig one up at the Alt mouth. The following gentlemen were present, and can speak to the truth of what I am about to describe :-Messrs. R. A. Eskrigge, F.G.S., W. Semmons, F.G.S., T. J. Moore, C.M.Z.S., T. Higgin, F.L.S., Alfred Morgan, E. M. Hance, LL.B., Edwin Foster, and W. Hewitt, B.Sc. In consequence of prevailing winds, and changes in the tidal currents, the submarine forest at the Alt mouth is undergoing considerable denudation; and is therefore in an exceptionally good state for observation. A stump was selected having a prostrate oak trunk lying beside it, which, from its size and position, one might legitimately infer lay as it fell from its basal stump and roots. Operations were commenced by digging a trench around the stool of the tree in the peat, and fifteen inches into the blue silt below. In doing this, a number of main roots and many rootlets were intercepted and cut through by the spade. Several of the main roots were then very carefully pared of the peat in which they were embedded, and traced down, and connected with the roots in the blue clay, which had been severed by the spade. The tree was then undermined and levered up with planks; and on being removed, numerous tap roots were seen penetrating the silt, below our excavation. On turning the stump over, the same tap roots were seen in the silt remaining attached to the tree. Some of the party also dug away the peat and sandy silt from the stool of a larger oak tree, higher up the shore, and traced the main roots into the ground below. That the trees of this ancient forest are now in the places in which they grew and fell was, therefore, proved to demonstration, and certainly to the satisfaction of every gentleman present. The process of destruction undergone by the peat discloses from day to day fresh proofs of the truth of the foregoing observations. Roots of trees are from time to time exposed by the removal of the peat above them, preserved in all their connected ramifications. The silt or ground in which the trees are rooted belongs to the series which I have named-the Formby and Leasowe` Marine Beds; and an excavation made on a previous occasion showed a bed of shells, six inches thick, composed mostly of Cardium edulis and Tellina balthica, about six feet below the surface. That this forest is pre-historic I have no doubt whatever, and a very considerable alteration of the relative levels of the land and sea must have taken place since it grew. In connexion with this subject, I have been making a collection of mammalian bones, which are deposited in the Liverpool Museum. They have been washed out of the peat and the underlying silts. The submarine forest at Leasowe and Meols is the Cheshire equivalent of the one just described. Nor is it by any means a local phenomenon that I have described; as similar forest beds, of the same age, are met with in almost every important estuary of Great Britain. * Post-Glacial Geology of Lancashire and Cheshire.-Proceedings of L'pool Geo. Soc., Session 1871-72. THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH WORD SERJEANT.” By the Rev. H. S. Gardner, B.A. [READ MARCH 7TH, 1878.] THE inquiry into the history of this word was suggested during the process of another search, illustrative of the way in which the particularity of the narratives of St. Luke in his Gospel and in the "Acts of the Apostles," throws great light upon, and is in turn confirmed by, ancient-and specially Roman and Greek-history, manners, and customs. The passage more especially pertinent to our present inquiry, is the description of the apprehension and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, as contained in chapter xvi of the Acts. It is interesting to observe that with respect to technical terms, representing purely Roman things, offices, institutions, and ways of thought, some are translated into Greek by a regular Greek word, such as would, at the time, be accepted as a sufficient equivalent. In one case, at least-and I think we may safely assume that there are several other parallel cases-the Roman word is simply Graecised, as it were, being transported bodily into Greek, and only differing from the original in the characters representing it to the eye. Thus in verse 12, the Roman Colonia is the very word used by Luke, of course in the Greek characters (koλwvia). Not that we can suppose St. Luke ignorant of the Greek word of somewhat similar import, ȧrouía, but he doubtless felt that the former word was the only one that could be correctly used, not only since the two words were not precisely synonymous, but also inasmuch as it was of a de facto" Roman Colonia (viz., Philippi) that he was writing. But, on the other hand, having occasion (in verses 35, 38,) to speak of the Roman Lictors, for such the officers in question undoubtedly were, he does not adopt the original Roman term, but uses an entirely different one, paßdõvxos, a word literally meaning "rod-bearer;" and doubtless this was the designation by which these officers were well known amongst the Greeks of that time. But the question then occurred to me, "Is the English "word Sergeant, which is the rendering of paßèõnxos in our "authorized version, the best equivalent for either the Greek “word just mentioned or for the Roman Lictor? and would "it not have been better to have retained the technical word "Lictor?" At the present time, perhaps, the first idea suggested by "Serjeant" is that of a military officer of the lower grade, i.e. one who is non-commissioned. It is true we have also our Serjeant-at-Law and our Serjeant-at-Mace, but I do not conceive that either of these titles would well correspond to the term Lictor. The following inquiries, then, are suggested here: I. What light does etymology throw upon the matter, both as to the original meaning of the word, and those which are secondary and derived ? II.-How and with what signification was it employed in the later Latin tongue? III.—What meanings had it in the Norman-French and in the French generally, down to, say, the end of the 13th century ? IV.—When did it first make its appearance in our English language and literature, and with what meanings? V. What was its signification in the Elizabethan era? VI. Is there any evidence tending to show that the translators of what we call the " authorized version" were influenced in the choice of this word by any previous versions of the Scriptures? We will try to answer these questions in order, and, I. As to the Etymology. There can, I suppose, be no question but that we have immediately obtained the word from the French, now written Sergent, but in O Fr. Serjent, thus only differing in the consonant coming in the middle of the word—in early times, j being used; and in later French, g. And is it not rather a curiosity of language that our two ways of spelling the word, both co-existing in time, should correspond with the two varying French orthographies, not existing side by side in point of time? This French Serjent or Sergent is undoubtedly the Latin Servient, the stem of the imperfect participle Serviens from Servire =" to be a servant," "to serve." The best modern representative is the Provincial Italian Servient. The process of derivation is thus given by Brachet, in his Dictionnaire Etomologique :-" Serjent comes "from Lat. Servient-em, (1) by changing i into j, Servjent, "which (2) is reduced to Serjent by the regular fall of v." (Concerning this "regular" fall of v, I trust to say more presently.) However he goes on to say, "D'ailleurs, on "trouve serviens, dans les textes latins du moyen âge au sens "du sergent, ce qui confirme l'origine indiquée." With this derivation Roquefort, Littré, and others agree. It is noteworthy that in both English and French we have a pair of words, both derived from the Latin, and of the same fundamental meaning, although one is a more general term, Serjeant having become specialised; in fact, it appears to have become specialised almost from the beginning. These two terms are, of course, the French Servant (fem. Servante) and Sergent, corresponding precisely to the English equivalents, Servant and Sergeant. (And perhaps there may be an |