Page:History of Manchester (1771), Volume 1, by John Whitaker.djvu/342

 Chap.lX. O P HA N CITE STER. 311 this all. The fir is perpetually difcovered in fiich of our mofici particularly as were demonstrably prior to the fettlement of the Romans among us. It is difcovered in fuch moffes as appear to the prefeirt period a&ually traverfed by the toads of the Romans. . It is difcovered immediately adjoining to the road and abiblutely on both fides of it. Thus is the fir found very frequent in the mofs of Failiworth, clofe to either margin of the Street^ and mingled with oaks and birches. And as the road demonftrat£$» the mofs to have been formed before the fbttlement of the Romans at Manchester, fo the trees difcovered kf the mots mufr have been, all feqjially. cotemporary with it K and air equally with it prior to the fettlement of the Romans at Manchester. This argument carries a decifive authority with it* But we can profecute it fairly up to demonftration. The fir has been difcovered in our mofles, ftot only in fuch parts as ate immediately contiguous too the Roman roads over them, but in inch as are actually occupied and covered with the line of the Roman roads ,, ami in the black fpuogy earth immediately be- neath the Roman gravel. It has been very recently dug up by. myfelf wider the roots of the rood over Failfworth Mofs. And. I have now in my owfi pofleffion two pieces of tried genu 'net fir that were bedded with the remains of a birch~tree one yard and a half in the mofly foil and th«e yajrdfc under the crown of the Roman gravel. - Thefo are three : ^rguments>whiGh are all fufficiently convincing of theiAfelve^ Tbefe are thr-eo arguments which, fpringing $ro«a as Bdany different fiwHteav ail happily unite together in one tfetomto tfhaA&6l* and form: together an irrefiftible tide of evi- dence,. And a fad; which relates to the remoteft aotiquity, and which i* aflferted ft gam ft the higheft hiftoHOal author ity, cannot be too poiweffully demoaftrated,. The ftr then was one of the [ treee 6i Britain before the arrival of the Romans among us. But <fee beech was not. We. have the pofitive teftimony of Gaefar*. that the beech was mnknown to the ifland at the period of his •wn ifrta&fri. We have no d&monftrative reaibns T we have no fotteabW argument!, vte ha?& a© arguments at all,.againft it; And.