St. James's.
_Burial of an unclaimed Corpse_ (Vol. vii., p. 262.).--E. G. R.'s
question is easily answered. The parish of Keswick proved that some
years before they had buried a body found on a piece of land. This was
evidence of reputation that at the time of the burial the land was in
Keswick, otherwise the parishioners would not have taken on themselves
this work of uncalled-for benevolence. The fact of their having incurred
an expense, which, unless the land was in their parish, would have been
the burden of Markshall, satisfied the commissioner that the land must
have belonged to Keswick. I have no doubt this was the reason, though I
never heard of the question in connexion with Keswick and Markshall.
Battersea Rise, I heard when a boy, had formerly belonged to Clapham,
and been given to Battersea for the same reason as E. G. R. states to
have been the cause of Markshall losing its territory to Keswick.