Samuel Swift
English Member of Parliament (c1659-1718)
Samuel Swift (c. 1659 – 8 February 1718) was an English Tory politician, MP for Worcester from 1693 to 1694 and 1695 to 1718.
Swift was the son of William Swift, a Worcester merchant, and his wife, Martha Beauchamp.
On 25 November 1679, Swift married Sarah Shrewing, daughter of Thomas Shrewing of Worcester.
He pursued a career in local Worcester politics, serving on the council from 1677, as Chamberlain in 1678–79, Sheriff in 1683–84, Mayor in 1684–85 and October–November 1688, alderman in 1689, and High Sheriff of Worcestershire in 1692–93.
In 1693, Sir John Somers, having been appointed Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, vacated his seat at Worcester. A bitter by-election ensued, contested by the Tory Swift and the Whig Charles Cocks, Somers' brother-in-law. 682 votes elected Swift to 575, but Cocks petitioned the House of Commons to overturn the result on the grounds of illegal voting practices. The petition was upheld on 7 February 1694, and Swift was unseated, prompting outrage among the citizens of Worcester.
In 1695 Cocks stood at Droitwich, and Swift was re-elected at Worcester. He held the seat until his death.
“Samuel Swift” enters the record as english Member of Parliament (c1659-1718). Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Samuel, Swift and English can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Samuel Swift” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Samuel, Swift and English provides the most credible route into that argument.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q30322507. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1659, 1718, 1693 and 1694.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Samuel Swift”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Samuel Swift primary sources, Samuel Swift archive and Samuel research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Samuel Swift”?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Samuel Swift” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.