My first reaction to Luc's point was: "that old chestnut!", but on
reflection I think he is right. In the light of modern scholarship, when
does the first Prime/premier/first minister appear?
In my opinion, the essence of the P.M.ship is a legitimate
official and constitutional office married to a great deal more _de facto_
power and authority. In addition, a P.M. has to be at the head of
something more ideological than a connexion of kinsmen and clients. I.e.,
at however low-key a level, he has to be more than just the monarch's
faithful servant and represent something more than just the aggrandisement
of himself and his cronies.
By these crude measures I would suggest either Danby or Robert
Harley were the first P.M.s, though since Danby was not allowed to direct
foreign policy his claim is weaker.
Daniel Szechi
Auburn University