case BARBUITS case in chancery see Magdalena steam navigation company v Martin  l I Q b the Charkieh lr Adm Ecc of foreign minister consul c whether privilege  by the statute which be declarative of the law of nation there be no prescript  form of appoint they a foreign minister who use merchandising do not thereby  lose his privilege though any of his retinue in such case will matter of  commerce may be proper object for the employment of ambassador yet quere  whether consul have such privilege Barbuit have a commission as agent of  commerce from the king of Prussia in great Britain in the year which be accept  here by the lord justice then the king be abroad after the late king demise  his commission be not renew until and then it be and allow in a proper manner  but with the recital of the power give he in the commission and allow he as  such these commission be direct general to all the person who the same shall  concern and not to the king and his business describe in the commission be to  do and execute what his Prussian majesty shall think fit to order with regard  to his subject trade in great Britain to present letter memorial and  instrument concern trade to such person and at such place as shall be  convenient and to receive resolution thereon and thereby his Prussian majesty  require all person to receive write from his hand and give he aid and  assistance Barbuit live here near twenty year and exercise the trade of a  tallowchandler and claim the privilege of a ambassador or foreign minister to  be free from arrest after hear counsel on this point vide triquet and other v  bath burr S p black Rep S c Lord chancellor a bill be file in this court  against the defendant in upon which he exhibit his cross bill style himself  merchant on the hear of these cause the cross bill be dismiss and in the other  a account decree against the defendant the account be pass before the master  the defendant take exception to the master report which be overrule and then  the defendant be take upon a attachment for nonpayment c and now ten year  after the case tempt Talbot commencement of the suit he insist he be a public  minister and therefore all the proceed against he null and void though this be  a very unfavourable case yet if the defendant be true a public minister I  think he may now insist upon it for the privilege of a public minister be to  have his person sacred and free from arrest not on his own account but on the  account of those he represent and this arise from the necessity of the thing  that nation may have intercourse with one another in the same manner as  private person by agent when they can meet themselves and if the foundation of  this privilege be for the sake of the prince by who a ambassador be send and  for sake of the business he be to do it be impossible that he can renounce  such privilege and protection for by his be throw into prison the business  must inevitable suffer the question be whether the defendant be such a person  as whether cap describe which be only declaratory of the ancient universal law  a king of Illyria vide black Com where the circumstance which occasion the  make this act be state at large the word of the statute be ambassador or other  public minister case tempt Talbot er p and the exception of person trade  relate only to their servant the parliament never imagine that the minister  themselves will trade I do not think the word ambassador or other public  minister be synonymous I think that the word ambassador in the act of  parliament be intend to signify minister send upon extraordinary occasion  which be common call ambassador extraordinary and public minister in the act  take in all other who constant reside here and both be entitle to these  privilege the question be whether the defendant be within the latter word it  have be object that he be not a public minister because he bring no credential  to the king now although it be true that this be the most common form yet it  will be carry it too far to say that these credential be absolute necessary  because all nation have not the same form of appointment it have be say that  to make he a public minister he must be employ about state affair in which  case if state affair be use in opposition to commerce it be case tempt Talbot  wrong but if only to signify the business between nation and nation the  proposition be right for trade be a matter of state and of a public nature and  consequent a proper subject for the employment of a ambassador in treaty of  commerce those employ be as much public minister as any other and the reason  for their protection hold as strong and it be of no weight with I that the  defendant be not to concern himself about other matter of state if he be  authorize as a public minister to transact matter of trade it be not necessary  that a minister commission shall be general to entitle he to protection but it  be enough that he be to transact any one particular thing in that capacity as  every ambassador extraordinary be or to remove some particular difficulty  which may otherwise occasion war but what create my difficulty be that I do  not think he be entrust to transact affair between the two crown the  commission be to assist his Prussian majesty subject here in their commerce  and so be the allowance now this give he no authority to intermeddle with the  affair of the king which make his employment to be in the nature of a consul  and although he be call only a agent of commerce I do not think the name alter  the case indeed there be some circumstance that put he below a consul for he  want the power of judicature which be common give to consul also their  commission be usual direct to the prince of the country which be not the  present case but at most he be only a consul it be the opinion of barbeyrac  Wincquefort and other that a consul be not entitle to the Jus a king of  Illyria belong to ambassador and as there be no authority to consider the  defendant in any other view than as a consul unless I can be satisfy that  those act in that capacity be entitle to the Jus a king of Illyria I can  discharge he in the discussion of this case the court seem to have determine  that a person reside in this country in the capacity of foreign minister can  by any act or act of his own waive that privilege or protection which the law  of nation have annex to a situation so important that a foreign minister be or  become a trader do not thereby lose or forfeit the privilege personal annex to  he and therefore the only reason why the court in the present instance do not  think the defendant entitle to the protection which he claim be that the  employment which he be invest with can at most be consider only as the same  with or equal to that of consul which accord to the best writer upon the  subject be not entitle to the Jus a king of Illyria or privilege belong to  ambassador or minister who be entrust to transact matter of state or other  affair between two nation that the law of nation which in its full extent be  and form part of the law of England be the rule of decision in case of this  kind and that the act of parliament be declaratory of it and occasion by a  particular incident note the person be after discharge by the secretary office  satisfy the creditor case tempt Talbot er p case tempt Talbot de term S the  number three geo two in curian porter