ated, that which was set up during the day being plucked down in
the night. At last, one night when the work wrought on the day before
was being watched, the wardens saw it thrown suddenly down, and heard a
voice proceeding from a Spirit hovering above them which cried ever
'Bryn-y-grog!' 'Bryn-y-grog!' Now the site of the present church was at
that time called 'Bryn-y-grog' (Hill of the Cross), and it was at once
concluded that this was the spot on which the church should be built.
The occupier of this spot, however, was exceedingly unwilling to part
with the inheritance of his forefathers, and could only be induced to do
so when the story which has just been related was told to him, and other
land given him instead. The church was then founded at 'Bryn-y-grog,'
where the progress of the work suffered no interruption, and where the
Church of Wrexham still stands."

Mr. Palmer, having remarked that there is a striking resemblance between
all the traditions of churches removed mysteriously, proceeds to solve
the difficulty, in these words:--

"The conclusions which occurred to me were, that these stories contain a
record, imaginative and exaggerated, of real incidents connected with the
history of the churches to which each of them belongs, and that they are
_in most cases_ reminiscences _of an older church which once actually
stood on another site_. The destroying powers of which they all speak
were probably human agents, working in the interest of those who were
concerned in the transference of the site of the church about to be
re-built; while the stories, as a whole, were apparently concocted and
circulated with the intention of overbearing the opposition which the
proposed transference raised--an opposition due to the inconvenience of
the site proposed, to sacred associations connected with the older site,
or to the unwillingness of the occupier to surrender the spot selected."

This is, as everything Mr. Palmer writes, pertinent, and it is a
reasonable solution, but whether it can be made to apply to all cases is
somewhat doubtful. Perhaps we have not sufficient data to arrive at a
correct explanation of this kind of myth. The objection was to the
_place_ selected and not to the _building_ about to be erected on that
spot; and the _agents_ engaged in the destruction of the proposed edifice
differ in different places; and in many instances, where these traditions
exist, the land around, as regards agricultura