SOCKBURN
Soccabyrig, Sochasburgh (viii cent.); Socceburg
(xii cent.); Socceburn (xiii cent.).
The parish of Sockburn includes the three townships of Sockburn, Girsby and Over Dinsdale, which
cover altogether 2,757 acres. Of these the first is
entirely in the county of Durham, the other two are
in the wapentake of Allerton. Sockburn is mentioned
as early as 780, when it was the scene of the consecration of Hygbald Bishop of Lindisfarne. (fn. 1)
The Tees forms the boundary between the two
counties, and also the boundary between the townships,
except at one point near the parish church where the
boundary leaves the river and runs alongside it on the
right bank. In this part of its course the Tees forms a
series of long loops. At the south end of one of these
and on the bank of the stream is the modern manorhouse built by Henry Collingwood Blackett in 1836, (fn. 2)
and now the residence of Mr. W. H. Williamson.
The family of Conyers had a residence here for
many generations. It was described in the 15th
century as having a hall, chamber, kitchen, granary
and stable. (fn. 3) Mill House and Mill Wood mark the
site of the mill which is mentioned at the same time.
The Thirstandale Wood of that date is now Staindale Wood. In 1470 Sir Christopher Conyers had
licence to inclose with a wall and fortify his manorhouse. (fn. 4)
Leland describes it thus: 'the eldest house of the
Coniers with the demains about it of a mile cumpace
of exceding pleasaunt ground, is almost made an isle,
as Tese ryver windeth about it.' 'At a little distance
below the maner-place,' he adds, 'is a grete were for
fish.' (fn. 5)
South of the hall are the ruins of the ancient church
of All Saints, which has been partly pulled down. (fn. 6) In
a field near the church is the celebrated Grey Stone
where, according to tradition, the 'Worm of Sockburn'
was slain by the valorous Sir John Conyers, first of his
race. 'The scent of the poyson was soe strong that
noe person was able to abide it, yet hee by the providence of God overthrew it and lyes buried at
Sockburn before the Conquest, but before hee did
enterprise it (having but one child) he went to the
churche in compleate armour and offerd up his sonne to
the Holy Ghost, which monument is yet to see and
the place where the serpent lay is called Gray Stone.' (fn. 7)
The falchion with which Sir John was said to have
done this deed was preserved at Sockburn manorhouse, and was presented to the Bishop of Durham on
his entry into the diocese by the Conyers of the day.
This ceremony took place in the middle of the Tees
at Neasham Ford, a little higher up the river. (fn. 8)
The village of Girsby, which lies rather less than
a mile to the north-east of Sockburn, is reached by
Girsby Bridge. On the bank of the river near the
bridge is the parish church, which was built by the
late Mr. Henry Collingwood Blackett and the Master
of Sherburn (fn. 9) to replace the old building near Sockburn
Hall. The modern church, though on the Girsby
side of the river, is still in Sockburn township. The
village of Girsby is very small and the only house of
importance is Girsby Grange, the residence of the
vicar.
North of Girsby and opposite Low Dinsdale in the
county of Durham is the township of Over Dinsdale,
a wedge-shaped piece of land bounded on three
sides by one of the irregular loops of the River
Tees. On the river just within its boundaries are
fish-locks and a weir. Over Dinsdale Hall, which
was rebuilt at the beginning of the present century by
Mr. Thompson, is a mile to the north of this point.
The lane leading from Girsby to Over Dinsdale crosses
the river by a toll-bridge near the hall and Grange
into the parish of Low Dinsdale. It then runs west
to Neasham and so joins the road to Sockburn again.
The great high road from Catterick Bridge to
Yarm runs across the south-eastern corner of Girsby
township and crosses Staindale Beck by Staindale
Bridge.
The only industry is agriculture; 1,055 acres are
under cultivation, and a rather larger area is grassland. (fn. 10) The soil is sandy on a subsoil of Keuper
Marls, and the chief crops are oats, potatoes and
beans.
Manors
In the time of Aldhun Bishop of
Durham (990–1018) (fn. 11) Snaculf son of
Cykell granted 'Socceburgh and Grisebi,'
with other lands, to the church of St. Cuthbert at
Durham. (fn. 12) After the Conquest SOCKBURN became
the seat of one of the great baronial families of the
bishopric, the Conyers of Sockburn. There are
two traditions as to the origin of the barony. A Sir
John de Conyers, (fn. 13) probably apocryphal, is made the
hero of one of those dragon-slaying exploits which are
given as the explanation of
various ancient tenures in the
Palatinate, (fn. 14) and is said to
have been buried in Sockburn
Church before the Conquest.
The legend that he received
his lands (fn. 15) for his prowess in
slaying the poisonous 'Worm
of Sockburn' is supported by
the serjeanty belonging to the
manor which is mentioned
above. It was the duty of
the lord to meet the Bishop of
Durham on his first entry into
the diocese and present to him a falchion. (fn. 16) This
was restored to him by the bishop, and he was then
quit of all services. The custom was still observed
in 1771. (fn. 17)
Conyers of Sockburn. Azure a sleeve or.
Another tradition makes the Conyers family
hereditary constables of Durham Castle from the time
of William the Conqueror, (fn. 18) and therefore presumably
tenants of the Bishops of Durham in the Palatinate
from that date. It seems probable, however, that the
actual origin of the barony was the grant of land in
Bishopton, Stainton, Sockburn, Dinsdale, Girsby,
Hutton, Newton, Howgrave and Holme which Bishop
Ralph Flambard made to Roger de Conyers, a member
of his council, (fn. 19) at the end of the 11th or beginning
of the 12th century. (fn. 20) This grant was confirmed by
the Prior and convent of St. Cuthbert. (fn. 21) A later
confirmation (fn. 22) states that Roger de Conyers was
enfeoffed by Bishop Ralph 'in Hutton, Norton,
Holme and Howgrave for one knight's fee. And
Rounton, Girsby, and Dinsdale for one knight's fee,
and Bishopton and Stainton and Sockburn for one
knight's fee. And Elmshit which he holds of the
honour of Brancepeth and West Auckland and Evenwood and Morley and Mayland for one knight's fee.
And Bedlington and Bedlingtonshire for two knights'
fees. And Finningham in Suffolk which he holds of
the honour of Crayke for half a knight's fee.'
This Roger de Conyers was the chief defender of
the bishopric in 1141–4 against the invasion of
William Cumin. (fn. 23) He alone of the barons of the
bishopric refused to do homage to the usurper, (fn. 24) and
in 1144 he succeeded in compelling him to surrender
Durham Castle. (fn. 25) Earlier in the struggle he had
fortified his own estate of Bishopton, (fn. 26) and had used
it as a place of refuge for the legally elected Bishop
William de St. Barbara. (fn. 27)
Roger de Conyers, son and heir of the first baron, (fn. 28)
had a confirmation of the grant of Bishop Ralph from
Henry II, (fn. 29) and was holding three knights' fees of
the Bishop of Durham in Yorkshire in 1166. (fn. 30)
Roger de Conyers had three sons, Robert, (fn. 31) Roger (fn. 32)
and Geoffrey. (fn. 33) Robert was the eldest, and with his
father made a confirmation of the grant of West
Rounton Church to Bishop Hugh Pudsey. (fn. 34) Whether
he actually came into possession of his father's lands
is uncertain, but they were certainly acquired before
1195 by his brother Roger, (fn. 35) who appears to have
had no legal claim. (fn. 36) Roger son of Robert (fn. 37) made
various attempts to recover his inheritance. A
preliminary settlement was made by fine in 1195, (fn. 38)
when Roger de Conyers, the uncle, quitclaimed to
his nephew lands in Hutton, Norton and Dinsdale,
reserving the dower of Basilia widow of Roger de
Conyers, and in return Roger, the nephew, quitclaimed his right in Bishopton, Sockburn, Girsby and
Stainton, reserving the dower of Mabel widow of
Robert de Conyers. (fn. 39)
In the next year, however, Roger son of Robert
owed 40 marks for having right of his father's lands
against his uncle Roger in Hutton, Norton, Girsby
and Dinsdale. (fn. 40) The elder Roger nevertheless
remained in possession of Sockburn and appears to
have been succeeded by his brother Geoffrey. (fn. 41) In
1225 Geoffrey was dead, (fn. 42) and his son and heir John
was under age and in the custody of Hubert de
Burgh. (fn. 43) Two years later John de Bassingburn was
his guardian (fn. 44) and had to meet a demand made by
Leonard the Jew of York for the payment of a debt
due from the estates of Geoffrey de Conyers. (fn. 45) In
1239 John de Conyers was in possession of the estate
and took a further step in the settlement of the feud
with the elder branch of the family, now represented by
Robert son of Roger. (fn. 46) John complained that Robert
had not kept the fine of 1195, and made a fresh
agreement, by which he granted Robert the manor of
Finningham in Suffolk and received in return the
manor of Girsby and half a carucate in Dinsdale to
hold of Robert and his heirs. At the same time
Robert quitclaimed to John all his right in Bishopton,
Stainton, Sockburn, Auckland, West Rounton, and a
carucate in Dinsdale which John had previously held. (fn. 47)
This was the end of the dispute as far as Sockburn
was concerned, and the descendants of John remained
in possession, while Robert founded the family of
Conyers of Hutton Conyers (q.v.).
The heir of John was his brother Humphrey, (fn. 48)
lord of Girsby in 1259. (fn. 49) He was dead in 1283,
when his widow Parnel claimed dower. (fn. 50) His son
John (fn. 51) succeeded him and proved his right to free
warren in Girsby in 1293. (fn. 52) He married Scolastica
daughter and heir of Sir Ralph de Cotum, (fn. 53) and was
succeeded by his son John before 1304. (fn. 54)
The latter died in 1342 without male issue. (fn. 55)
His daughter Elizabeth married Sir John Colvill (fn. 56) and
carried some of the Conyers' estates into his family.
Sockburn, which must have been entailed, passed
to another John Conyers, (fn. 57) apparently a nephew. (fn. 58)
He held the manor till February 1394–5, when he
was succeeded by his son Robert. (fn. 59) Robert died in
1431, (fn. 60) leaving a son Christopher, who was under age.
Christopher had livery of his lands in 1444, (fn. 61) and in
1470 had licence to fortify his manor of Sockburn. (fn. 62)
His son William succeeded him in 1487 (fn. 63) and died
in 1490, leaving a son Christopher. (fn. 64) This Christopher was succeeded six years later by his son
Thomas, (fn. 65) who proved his age at Darlington in 1511. (fn. 66)
He died in 1520. (fn. 67) His son and heir George (fn. 68) was
the next lord of Sockburn, which he held till his
death in 1567. (fn. 69) John Conyers his son succeeded
him, (fn. 70) and was in his turn succeeded by another
George, (fn. 71) his son and heir, who died in 1625–6. (fn. 72)
William son of George (fn. 73) was the last of the male line
of Conyers.
Blackett, baronet. Argent a cheveron between three pierced molets sable with three scallops argent upon the cheveron.
At his death in 1635 (fn. 74) his three daughters
Katharine, Ann and Dorothy were all infants. (fn. 75) The
second daughter Ann, the only one who reached
maturity, married Francis Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury. (fn. 76) They had an only daughter Mary, (fn. 77) who
became the wife of John Stonor
of Stonor, Oxfordshire, (fn. 78) and
inherited the manor of Sockburn, which she sold to Sir
William Blackett, bart., of
Newcastle. (fn. 79) He was succeeded
by his son Sir Edward, who
held the manor till his death
in 1718. (fn. 80) A second Sir
Edward, his son and heir,
succeeded him and died without issue in 1756. His nephew
Edward son of John Blackett
was his heir. William son of
Edward Blackett was the next
baronet. (fn. 81) He gave or left the
manor to his third son Henry Collingwood Blackett,
who at his death without issue in 1856 left it to his
elder brother Edward, the sixth baronet. From him
it passed to Sir Edward William Blackett, who gave
it to his second son, Mr. Arthur Edward Blackett,
the present owner. (fn. 82)
Humphrey de Conyers granted to the Abbot and
monks of Rievaulx a piece of ground and a fishery in
the waters of the Tees extending to the boundaries
between Dinsdale and Girsby. He also granted them
as much brushwood from Thurstandale as two horses
could draw. (fn. 83)
GIRSBY (Grisebi, xi cent.) was granted with
Sockburn to the church of St. Cuthbert of Durham, (fn. 84)
and in 1086 6 carucates here were returned among
the lands of the bishop. (fn. 85)
Girsby was granted to Roger de Conyers with
Sockburn (fn. 86) (q.v.) and for six centuries followed its
descent. The long feud between the descendants of
Roger de Conyers in the 13th century (fn. 87) seems to have
centred in the manor of Girsby. The younger Roger
claimed it against his uncle in 1196, (fn. 88) and in the
settlement of 1239 his son Robert reserved a mesne
lordship in this manor as his own right. (fn. 89) Twenty
years later Roger son of Robert sued Humphrey de
Conyers of Sockburn for not keeping this agreement. (fn. 90)
The younger and more powerful branch of the family
seems, however, to have made a successful resistance
to this claim, for in 1284–5 the manor of Girsby was
said to be held by John de Conyers directly of the
bishop for a fourth part of a knight's fee. (fn. 91) No
mesne lordship of the Conyers of Hutton Conyers is
mentioned.
Girsby followed the descent of Sockburn (fn. 92) (q.v.)
into the hands of the Blackett family, (fn. 93) and Sir
Edward Blackett was holding it in 1710. (fn. 94) Shortly
afterwards it must have been sold to James Nicholson
of West Rainton (Dur.), whose daughters and coheirs, Jane, Anne and Mary, were in possession in
1736–46. (fn. 95) Mary died unmarried, (fn. 96) Jane married
Thomas Earl of Strathmore in 1736, (fn. 97) and Anne
married Patrick Lyon, brother of the earl. (fn. 98) The
estate was never subsequently owned as a whole by
any one person. In 1774 Ann Lyon, spinster, was
holding a moiety. (fn. 99) She is apparently to be identified
with the Ann daughter of Patrick Lyon who married
John Clutterbuck of Warkworth, (fn. 100) and with her
husband held half the manor in 1778. (fn. 101) The other
half was held by Alexander Emerson and his wife
Susanna, (fn. 102) who must also have been a Lyon and heir
of the share of the Countess of Strathmore. Some
manorial rights were retained by the Earls of Strathmore, for the manor of Girsby appears among their
possessions as late as 1801. (fn. 103) In 1823 Henry Donkin
was party to a fine with various members of the family
of Raine concerning a fourth part of the manor. (fn. 104)
The present landowners are Sir Henry HavelockAllan, bart., and Mrs. Wilson.
OVER DINSDALE (Dirnshala, Detinsale, Dinehale, xi cent.; Dalineshal, Ditneshal, Dedensall, xii
cent.; Dedinsdale, xvii cent.) in 1086 was in the
hands of Count Alan, but soke of Northallerton (q.v.);
Elsi had held one 'manor' here with 3 carucates of
land before the Conquest. (fn. 105)
Three carucates in Dinsdale previously held by
Crinan son of Thorne passed with the rest of the
soke into the possessions of the Bishop of Durham (fn. 106)
and were granted with Sockburn (q.v.) to Roger de
Conyers. (fn. 107) The dispute between the two branches
of the Conyers family in the 12th and 13th centuries
ended in the division of the Dinsdale lands; 2½ carucates were allotted to the elder branch of the family,
while the Conyers of Sockburn had the remaining 1½, (fn. 108)
of which half a carucate was to be held of the Conyers
of Hutton Conyers. (fn. 109) This part of the agreement was
not observed and in 1284–5 John Conyers of Sockburn
was holding 1½ carucates of the Bishop of Durham. (fn. 110)
The land in both parts of the vill seems to have
been held in small portions by sub-tenants, and its
descent is difficult to trace. That some part of
it followed the descent of Hutton Conyers for
several centuries is apparent from the fact that the
Mallorys, lords of Hutton Conyers (q.v.), held messuages and lands here in the 16th century. (fn. 111) It was
possibly from them that John Maynard and Mary his
wife, who held what was called the 'manor of Over
Dinsdale' in 1625, (fn. 112) acquired their interest. They
quitclaimed it in 1631 with a warranty against the
heirs of Mary to John Conyers, (fn. 113) whose connexion
with the other branches of the family is not clear.
He married Alice Ascough, daughter of Christopher
Ascough of Middleton one Row, (fn. 114) and was succeeded
in the estate by her nephew Thomas Ascough, (fn. 115) on
whom it was apparently settled. (fn. 116) He was succeeded
by his son Alan, whose son, another Alan, was in
possession of tenements here in 1714. (fn. 117)
Among the tenants in the other part of the township in the 17th century was the family of Ward.
They perhaps acquired their estate here from the
Girlingtons, who owned 12 oxgangs in 1606. (fn. 118) Robert
Ward held two messuages and 12 oxgangs in 1625,
of which half was held of Sir George Conyers of
Sockburn. (fn. 119) His son Robert (fn. 120) held lands in Over
Dinsdale in 1633, (fn. 121) and Richard and Thomas Ward
answered for five hearths there in 1673. (fn. 122) During
the 18th century this family seems to have acquired the
greater part of the township, and the Misses Ward
were the principal landowners in 1823. (fn. 123) Their
estate was subsequently acquired by the Rev. W. S.
Temple, who sold it to Mr. J. Emerson. It was
purchased from him in 1871 by Mr. Charles Pease. (fn. 124)
His executors (fn. 125) sold it to Mr. Thompson of Sunderland, whose son Mr. R. Thompson is the present
owner. (fn. 126)
Church
The ruins of the church of ALL
SAINTS (fn. 127) stand on a broad plateau of
rich meadow land less than a mile
square, inclosed within a loop of the River Tees at
the southernmost point of the county of Durham,
2 or 3 miles below the village of Neasham. The
ruins are situated a short distance to the south-west
of Sockburn Hall, no other building being near, and
are protected by a fence. The opposite bank of
the river is clothed with forest trees which shut out
any distant views.
Plan of Sockburn Church
The building was in use down to the year 1838,
when a new church was built at Girsby on the
Yorkshire side of the river. It was then unroofed
and allowed to go to ruin, but in 1900 the Conyers
chapel was repaired and roofed, the ruins cleared of
rubbish, and certain excavations made which led to
the discovery of a large number of pre-Conquest
stones. Nine fragments of ancient cross-shafts and
horizontal grave slabs lay among the ruins before
this date, and a complete hog-back in two pieces
was at the hall. (fn. 128) No suspicion of pre-Conquest
work in the structure itself, however, existed till the
year 1891.
Previous to falling into ruin the church comprised
a chancel 26 ft. 4 in. by 15 ft., nave 24 ft. 5 in. by
13 ft. 9 in., south aisle, south porch, and chantry
chapel on the north side of the nave 12 ft. 6 in.
wide, all these measurements being internal. (fn. 129) The
many early sculptured stones found in 1900, some of
them forming the foundations of the pre-Conquest
chancel walls, indicate the existence of a cemetery,
and therefore of an accompanying church of which
no traces remain, and which may possibly have been
of wood. This early building was followed in the
pre-Conquest period by a church of stone, the nave
of which has remained unaltered so far as its dimensions are concerned up to the present day. It is
inclosed at its four angles with quoins of long and
short work, the walls being more than 20 ft. in
height. The foundations of the north and south
walls of the chancel were uncovered in 1900, and
showed the chancel to have been 10 ft. in width, but
no remains of the east wall were found and its length
can therefore only be conjectured, though the extent
of the foundation of the south wall indicates at least
an internal length of 11 ft. The chancel arch was
no doubt of the usual tall and narrow type, the
original jamb stones being re-used when the opening
was increased in width.
The pre-Conquest church with its aisleless nave
and chancel stood until the closing years of the 12th
century, when an aisle was added by breaking through
the south wall and inserting an arcade of two bays.
The pier supporting the arches is a tall cylindrical
shaft with square plinth and chamfered base and a
moulded octagonal capital. The arches are of two
slightly chamfered orders, the eastern one supported
by a short corbelled respond and the western one
dying into the wall. The width of the aisle was not
revealed by excavation, its outer wall having entirely
disappeared. The roof was probably a continuation
of that of the nave supported by corbels still in situ
over the arches.
Shortly afterwards, at the beginning of the 13th
century, the chancel was rebuilt on a larger scale, its
length exceeding that of the nave by 2 ft. and its
width being increased 5 ft. The east wall is pierced
by a triplet of lancet windows with slightly chamfered
external jambs. Inside the openings are widely
splayed in the usual manner, and the lights have
chamfered hood moulds on both sides. Between the
outer openings and the external angles of the east
wall are flat buttresses with chamfered plinths terminating in simple weathering. The original narrow
chancel arch gave place at this time to a pointed one,
9 ft. in width, of two chamfered orders springing at
a height of about 10 ft. from corbels of two oversailing courses. The north and south walls of the
chancel have entirely disappeared except for a short
length on each side at the east end. The height of
the existing east wall is about 16 ft.
The Conyers chapel was added on the north side
of the nave in the 14th century to provide a mortuary
chapel for the family and is 23 ft. 10 in. in length.
It opens to the nave by a flat pointed arch 11 ft. in
width of two chamfered orders dying into the wall at
the springing. The chapel was lighted at each end
by a three-light traceried window with double chamfered jambs, and the external angles have diagonal
buttresses differing in design. There is a bold chamfered plinth on the north and west sides. The heads
and mullions of both the windows and nearly the
whole of the north wall had been destroyed before
the restoration.
The stone effigy of a knight, four brasses and
some grave-covers occupy their original positions in
the chapel. The effigy belongs apparently to the
middle of the 13th century, (fn. 130) and is represented in
a suit of mail with sleeveless surcoat. The head rests
on a square cushion and the feet on a lion and
wyvern in combat. The legs are crossed and the
left arm bears a plain triangular shield. The sword,
held in the right hand, is suspended by a strap.
The brasses are inlaid in grave-covers in the floor
of the chapel, on the first of which can be traced an
incised cross, a shield with the Conyers arms and a
sword. The stone has been made to do duty a
second time when the brass, commemorating Sir John
Conyers, who died in 1394, was inserted in it.
The inscription, which, like all the others, is in Gothic
characters, reads: 'Hic jacet Joh[ann]es Conyers Miles
d[omi]nus de Sokburn qui obijt nonodecimo die
Februarii ao d'ni moccc nonogesimo quarto cui[us]
a[nim]e p[ro]piciet[ur] deus Amen.'
The second brass is to Sir Robert Conyers, his son,
and is inscribed: 'Hic jacet Robertus Conyers armiger
dominus de Sokbur qui obijt vicesimo quinto die
Aprilis ao d'ni mocccco tricesimo iijo cui[us] a[nim]e
p[ro]picietur deus Amen.'
The third is to Isabella wife of this Sir Robert
Conyers; she was daughter and co-heir of William
Pert: 'Hic jacet Isabella uxor Roberti Conyers
armigeri qui obijt nono die Aprilis ao d'ni mocccco
tricesimo iijo cui[us] a[nim]e propicietur deus Amen.'
The fourth brass is to Mary wife of Sir Christopher
Conyers, and bears an inscription in rhyming hexameters, stating that she died in 1470.
At each corner of the last slab is the matrix of a
shield which contained in coloured enamels the arms
of (1) Conyers quartering Vescy, (2) and (3) Conyers
impaling Eure, and (4) Eure, for Sir Christopher
Conyers, son of Sir Robert, who married Mary
daughter of Sir William Eure.
Other mediaeval fragments preserved in the chapel
comprise a portion of a square-headed traceried
window, a grave-cover with cross formed of four
circles conjoined, portions of three other gravecovers, (fn. 131) the bowl of a circular font, and fragments
of two panels possibly part of an altar tomb, on one
of which within cusping is the upper part of a shield
bearing two popinjays, and on the other the lower
part of a shield bearing in the third quarter a checker
and in the fourth remains of a scallop. There are
also four stones 11 in. in height, discovered in the
river bank some distance from the church, with
lettering in sunk panels which read: 'Seculor'.
'Mortali'. 'Soli Deo'. 'Seculor.' These probably
formed part of a motto which ran round the great hall
of the Conyers manor-house in the 15th century. (fn. 132)
The chapel also contains the collection of preConquest sculptured stones brought together during
the restoration and excavations of 1900. They comprise portions of twenty-two crosses and grave-covers
of varied and characteristic design. (fn. 133)
The new church at Girsby is an uninteresting
building with round-headed windows. It contains
two small bells, evidently from Sockburn, one of
which is inscribed in Lombardic letters 'Sancta
Maria ora pro nobis.' The other is dated 1770.
The plate consists of a chalice of 1742, made by
Isaac Cookson of Newcastle, and a set of two chalices,
two patens, a flagon and an almsdish presented
under the will of Robert Henry Allan of Blackwell
Hall, Darlington, in 1889. There is also a pewter
paten and flagon, the latter inscribed 'Sokburn 1746,
Thos Moncaster Church-warden.'
The registers begin in 1588.
Advowson
The church of Sockburn was in
existence before the Conquest, (fn. 134) but
no reference to it has been found
earlier than 1168, when Geoffrey de Conyers was
parson there. (fn. 135) The advowson was in the possession
of the lords of the manor till Roger de Conyers
granted it to the hospital of Sherburn at the foundation of that house by Bishop Hugh Pudsey in or
about 1181. (fn. 136) It was at some time before 1311 (fn. 137)
appropriated to the hospital and a vicarage ordained. (fn. 138)
In 1578 a dispute arose between John Conyers,
then lord of the manor of Sockburn, and the
almoner and brethren of Sherburn House with
regard to certain tithes belonging to the hospital. (fn. 139)
The evidence of their right had been lost and John
Conyers denied it.
The advowson has remained the right of the
master of Sherburn Hospital down to the present
day, though there are two instances in the 19th
century of presentation by the Bishop of Durham. (fn. 140)
Girsby appears to have had a chapel of its own in
the 14th century. (fn. 141) No trace of it remains.
There are no endowed charities.