Browne Willis* wrote of Thirsk in the early 18th century:

There are two towns viz Old and New Thirsk . . . being divided only by a rivulet . . . New Thirsk . . . has a broad square, St. James’ Green. This being the principal part of the town, the Members of Parliament are after their election in New Thirsk carried hither . . . The two Members of Parliament are chosen by the burgage tenures of Old Thirsk only, which are 48 in number. They poll in the town hall or session house in New Thirsk.

There was no corporation, and by the 1690s ownership of the burgages was in the hands of three interests: Thomas Frankland I, Ralph Bell, and the lords of the manor, the earls of Derby. However, the lords of the manor owned a minority of the burgages, so that the outcome of elections depended primarily on Frankland and Bell.2

Despite the lack of contested elections during the period, the political manoeuvring in the constituency remained complex. Although Frankland sat for the borough in all but one of the Parliaments from 1690 to 1710, Bell did not stand until 1710, and previously supported the candidature, from 1695 to 1708, of Sir Godfrey Copley, 2nd Bt. Before the 1695 election it was reported to Robert Harley* that the ‘old ones’ were likely to be returned at Thirsk, though not without opposition. Such a view may have stemmed from the fact that Bell had decided to support Copley, which would have meant a contest for the outgoing MPs, Frankland and Staines. However, Frankland’s decision not to stand until the by-election in Hedon just over a month later, prevented a contest.3

The importance of maintaining good relations with the electorate was not lost on Copley, who paid great attention to treating the borough men on a regular basis, giving presents of money and food, including a ‘buck’ and a ‘doe’ on several occasions. Such precautions proved worthwhile when, in late 1697, Thomas Worsley I* began to make an interest for himself. In July 1698 Copley believed that there would be a contest, but again, this was avoided. An attempt by Sir Abstrupus Danby* to secure Bell’s support in the first 1701 election also failed.4

The ability of Frankland and Bell to control elections suggests that there was a good degree of accommodation between the two. Bell was also on good terms with the lords of the manor, being described in 1702 as the 9th Earl of Derby’s agent. However, the by-election, necessitated by Copley’s death in 1709, provided the clearest demonstration of the understanding between Frankland and Bell. In order to avoid a contest, Bell agreed to support the candidature of Frankland’s nephew, Leonard Smelt, in return for Frankland supporting Bell’s nominee at the next general election. In 1710 Frankland duly supported Bell’s candidature, despite solicitations for his support from Thomas Worsley II*. Frankland and Bell were returned unopposed, at which time one of Harley’s correspondents described them as having ‘chose each other, for these two have much the greatest number of borough houses, and nobody can come in at Thirsk without their joint consent’. This shared control seems to have continued until the 1720s, when Bell bought the manor from the 10th Earl of Derby (Hon. James Stanley*). However, within a few years Bell ‘conveyed it’ to Frankland. Thereafter the Frankland interest became the predominant force in Thirsk elections.5