Was Charles Cornwallis a british prime minister?

Answer 1

No- the office of Prime Minister did not really exist at the time, as up until the time of the English Civil War Britain was an Absolute Monarchy, with ultimate governmental authority resting with the king or queen. There WAS a Parliament, which had a Chief Minister, but it was answerable to the sovereign and, although it could make laws, these had to be approved by the monarch who had the power to reject any that he or she did not agree with.

Following the Parliamentarian victory in the Civil War in 1649, Cromwell assumed the title of 'Lord Protector of England'. He was not directly involved in the political process, but head of what was effectively a military government. Parliament was reinstated and (as had been the whole point of what the war was fought for) was far stronger than it had been, with the final word over what laws were passed. But it was made up of men who were strong supporters of Cromwell's beliefs and policies, whom he knew he could trust to uphold the ideals of the English Revolution. Cromwell was leader of the country, but did not attempt to block or veto laws that were passed by Parliament in the way that some English monarchs had done before the war, merely ensured that Parliamentary authority could not be undermined. He did take issue with some proposals that he was not entirely happy with, and debated the matters with Government ministers, but did not behave in the way that the old Absolute Monarchs had done. He essentially oversaw the military rule of the country, which remained in place throughout the period we now know as the 'Commonwealth'- he did not intend that the nation should remain like this permanently, but the state had been in a condition of national emergency for years, very unstable and volatile. Cromwell oversaw strong military enforcement of Parliament's laws because he felt it was the only way to make sure that the country could become stable, secure and established as a proper democracy for the first time in it's history (rather like the process that is taking place in Afghanistan today).

He recognised that there had to be a Head of State, and would have been happy to permit a Constitutional Monarchy had the Royalist faction agreed to it, but such a notion was not possible at the time. His position was pretty much equivalent to that of a President- in the last resort, he had the final word, but did not want matters to come to this pass if it could possibly be avoided.

Answer 2

No, he was a British Army officer and Colonial Administrator, best remembered for being one of the leading Generals in the American War of Independence. Born 1738 died 1805