FOOTNOTES:

[1] Edwards also gives "quan" as an alternative spelling, and this

may be nearer the original form, since we find Dampier in 1676

writing (Voy. ii. pt. 2, p. 66) of what was doubtless an allied if

not the same bird as the "quam." The species represented by Edwards

does not seem to have been identified.

[2] See the excellent _Synopsis_ by Sclater and Salvin in the

_Proceedings of the Zoological Society_ for 1870 (pp. 504-544), while

further information on the Cracinae was given by Sclater in the

_Transactions_ of the same society (ix. pp. 273-288, pls. xl.-liii.).

Some additions have since been made to the knowledge of the family,

but none of very great importance.

GUANABACOA (an Indian name meaning "site of the waters"), a town of

Cuba, in Havana province, about 6 m. E. of Havana. Pop. (1907) 14,368.

Guanabacoa is served by railway to Havana, with which it is connected by

the Regla ferry across the bay. It is picturesquely situated amid woods,

on high hills which furnish a fine view. There are medicinal springs in

the town, and deposits of liquid bitumen in the neighbouring hills. The

town is essentially a residence suburb of the capital, and has some

rather pretty streets and squares and some old and interesting churches

(including Nuestra Senora de la Asuncion, 1714-1721). Just outside the

city is the church of Potosi with a famous "wonder-working" shrine and

image. An Indian pueblo of the same name existed here before 1555, and a

church was established in 1576. Already at the end of the 17th century

Guanabacoa was the fashionable summer residence of Havana. It enjoyed

its greatest popularity in this respect from the end of the 18th to the

middle of the 19th century. It was created a _villa_ with an

_ayuntamiento_ (city council) in 1743. In 1762 its fort, the Little

Morro, on the N. shore near Cojimar (a bathing beach, where the Key West

cable now lands), was taken by the English.

GUANACO, sometimes spelt Huanaca, the larger of the two wild

representatives in South America of the camel tribe; the other being the

vicugna. The guanaco (_Lama huanacus_), which stands nearly 4 ft. at the

shoulder, is an elegant creature, with gracefully curved neck and long

slender legs, the hind-pair of the latter bearing two naked patches or

callosities. The head and body are covered with long soft hair of a fawn

colour above and almost pure white beneath. Guanaco are found throughout

the southern half of South America, from Peru in the north to Cape Horn

in the south, but occur in greatest abundance in Patagonia. They live in

herds usually of from six to thirty, although these occasionally contain

several hundreds, while solitary individuals are sometimes met. They are

exceedingly timid, and therefore wary and difficult of approach; like

many other ruminants, however, their curiosity sometimes overcomes their

timidity, so as to bring them within range of the hunter's rifle. Their

cry is peculiar, being something between the belling of a deer and the

neigh of a horse. The chief enemies of the guanaco are the Patagonian

Indians and the puma, as it forms the principal food of both. Its flesh

is palatable although wanting in fat, while its skin forms the chief

clothing material of the Patagonians. Guanaco are readily domesticated,

and in this state become very bold and will attack man, striking him

from behind with both knees. In the wild state they never defend

themselves, and if approached from different points, according to the

Indian fashion of hunting, get completely bewildered and fall an easy

prey. They take readily to the water, and have been observed swimming

from one island to another, while they have been seen drinking

salt-water. They have a habit of depositing their droppings during

successive days on the same spot--a habit appreciated by the Peruvian

Indians, who use those deposits for fuel. Guanaco also have favourite

localities in which to die, as appears from the great heaps of their

bones found in particular spots.

[Illustration: Head of Guanaco.]

GUANAJAY, a town of western Cuba, in Pinar del Rio province, about 36 m.

(by rail) S.W. of Havana. Pop. (1907) 6400. Guanajay is served by the W.

branch of the United railways of Havana, of which it is the W. terminus.

The town lies among hills, has an excellent climate, and in colonial

times was (like Holguin) an acclimatization station for troops fresh

from Spain; it now has considerable repute as a health resort. The

surrounding country is a fertile sugar and tobacco region. Guanajay has

always been important as a distributing point in the commerce of the

western end of the island. It was an ancient pueblo, of considerable

size and importance as early as the end of the 18th century.

GUANAJUATO, or GUANAXUATO, an inland state of Mexico, bounded N. by

Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi, E. by Queretaro, S. by Michoacan and W.

by Jalisco. Area, 11,370 sq. m. It is one of the most densely populated

states of the republic; pop. (1895) 1,047,817; (1900) 1,061,724. The

state lies wholly within the limits of the great central plateau of

Mexico, and has an average elevation of about 6000 ft. The surface of

its northern half is broken by the Sierra Gorda and Sierra de

Guanajuato, but its southern half is covered by fertile plains largely

devoted to agriculture. It is drained by the Rio Grande de Lerma and its

tributaries, which in places flow through deeply eroded valleys. The

climate is semi-tropical and healthy, and the rainfall is sufficient to

insure good results in agriculture and stock-raising. In the warm

valleys sugar-cane is grown, and at higher elevations Indian corn,

beans, barley and wheat. The southern plains are largely devoted to

stock-raising. Guanajuato has suffered much from the destruction of its

forests, but there remain some small areas on the higher elevations of

the north. The principal industry of the state is mining, the mineral

wealth of the mountain ranges of the north being enormous. Among its

mineral products are silver, gold, tin, lead, mercury, copper and opals.

Silver has been extracted since the early days of the Spanish conquest,

over $800,000,000 having been taken from the mines during the subsequent

three and a half centuries. Some of the more productive of these mines,

or groups of mines, are the Veta Madre (mother lode), the San Bernabe

lode, and the Rayas mines of Guanajuato, and the La Valenciana mine, the

output of which is said to have been $226,000,000 between 1766 and 1826.

The manufacturing establishments include flour mills, tanneries and

manufactories of leather, cotton and woollen mills, distilleries,

foundries and potteries. The Mexican Central and the Mexican National

railway lines cross the state from N. to S., and the former operates a

short branch from Silao to the state capital and another westward from

Irapuato to Guadalajara. The capital is Guanajuato, and other important

cities and towns are Leon, or Leon de las Aldamas; Celaya (pop. 25,565

in 1900), an important railway junction 22 m. by rail W. from Queretaro,

and known for its manufactures of broadcloth, saddlery, soap and

sweetmeats; Irapuato (18,593 in 1900), a railway junction and commercial

centre, 21 m. S. by W. of Guanajuato; Silao (15,355), a railway junction

and manufacturing town (woollens and cottons), 14 m. S.W. of Guanajuato;

Salamanca (13,583). on the Mexican Central railway and Lerma river, 25

m. S. by E. of Guanajuato, with manufactures of cottons and porcelain;

Allende (10,547), a commercial town 30 m. E. by S. of Guanajuato, with

mineral springs; Valle de Santiago (12,660). 50 m. W. by S. of

Queretaro; Salvatierra (10,393), 60 m. S.E. of Guanajuato; Cortazar

(8633); La Luz (8318), in a rich mining district; Penjamo (8262); Santa

Cruz (7239); San Francisco del Rincon (10,904), 39 m. W. of Guanajuato

in a rich mining district; and Acambaro (8345), a prosperous town of the

plain, 76 m. S.S.E. of Guanajuato.

GUANAJUATO, or SANTA FE DE GUANAJUATO, a city of Mexico and capital of

the above state, 155 m. (direct) N.W. of the Federal capital, on a small

tributary of the Rio Grande de Lerma or Santiago. Pop. (1895) 39,404;

(1900) 41,486. The city is built in the Canada de Marfil at the junction

of three ravines about 6500 ft. above the sea, and its narrow, tortuous

streets rise steeply as they follow the ravines upward to the mining

villages clustered about the opening of the mines in the hillsides.

Guanajuato is sometimes described as a collection of mining villages;

but in addition there is the central city with its crowded winding

streets, its substantial old Spanish buildings, its fifty ore-crushing

mills and busy factories and its bustling commercial life. Enclosing the

city are the steep, barren mountain sides honeycombed with mines. The

climate is semi-tropical and is considered healthy. The noteworthy

public buildings and institutions are an interesting old Jesuit church

with arches of pink stone and delicate carving, eight monasteries, the

government palace, a mint dating from 1812, a national college, the fine

Teatro Juarez, and the Pantheon, or public cemetery, with catacombs

below. The Alhondiga de Granaditas, originally a public granary, was

used as a fort during the War of Independence, and is celebrated as the

scene of the first battle (1810) in that long struggle. Among the

manufactures are cottons, prints, soaps, chemicals, pottery and

silverware, but mining is the principal interest and occupation of the

population. The silver mines of the vicinity were long considered the

richest in Mexico, the celebrated Veta Madre (mother lode) even being

described as the richest in the world; and Guanajuato has the largest

reduction works in Mexico. The railway outlet for the city consists of a

short branch of the Mexican Central, which joins the trunk line at

Silao. Guanajuato was founded in 1554. It attained the dignity of a city

in 1741. It was celebrated for its vigorous resistance to the invaders

at the time of the Spanish conquest, and was repeatedly sacked during

that war.

GUANCHES, GUANCHIS or GUANCHOS (native Guanchinet; _Guan_=person,

_Chinet_ = Teneriffe,--"man of Teneriffe," corrupted, according to Nunez

de la Pena, by Spaniards into Guanchos), the aboriginal inhabitants of

the Canary Islands. Strictly the Guanches were the primitive inhabitants

of Teneriffe, where they seem to have preserved racial purity to the

time of the Spanish conquest, but the name came to be applied to the

indigenous populations of all the islands. The Guanches, now extinct as

a distinct people, appear, from the study of skulls and bones

discovered, to have resembled the Cro-Magnon race of the Quaternary age,

and no real doubt is now entertained that they were an offshoot of the

great race of Berbers which from the dawn of history has occupied

northern Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic. Pliny the Elder, deriving

his knowledge from the accounts of Juba, king of Mauretania, states that

when visited by the Carthaginians under Hanno the archipelago was found

by them to be uninhabited, but that they saw ruins of great buildings.

This would suggest that the Guanches were not the first inhabitants, and

from the absence of any trace of Mahommedanism among the peoples found

in the archipelago by the Spaniards it would seem that this extreme

westerly migration of Berbers took place between the time of which Pliny

wrote and the conquest of northern Africa by the Arabs. Many of the

Guanches fell in resisting the Spaniards, many were sold as slaves, and

many conformed to the Roman Catholic faith and married Spaniards.

Such remains as there are of their language, a few expressions and the

proper names of ancient chieftains still borne by certain families,

connect it with the Berber dialects. In many of the islands signs are

engraved on rocks. Domingo Vandewalle, a military governor of Las

Palmas, was the first, in 1752, to investigate these; and it is due to

the perseverance of D. Aquilino Padran, a priest of Las Palmas, that

anything about the inscription on the island Hierro has been brought to

light. In 1878 Dr R. Verneau discovered in the ravines of Las Balos some

genuine Libyan inscriptions. Without exception the rock inscriptions

have proved to be Numidic. In two of the islands (Teneriffe and Gomera)

the Guanche type has been retained with more purity than in the others.

No inscriptions have been found in these two islands, and therefore it

would seem that the true Guanches did not know how to write. In the

other islands numerous Semitic traces are found, and in all of them are

the rock-signs. From these facts it would seem that the Numidians,

travelling from the neighbourhood of Carthage and intermixing with the

dominant Semitic race, landed in the Canary Islands, and that it is they

who have written the inscriptions at Hierro and Grand Canary.

The political and social institutions of the Guanches varied. In some

islands hereditary autocracy prevailed; in others the government was

elective. In Teneriffe all the land belonged to the chiefs who leased it

to their subjects. In Grand Canary suicide was regarded as honourable,

and on a chief inheriting, one of his subjects willingly honoured the

occasion by throwing himself over a precipice. In some islands polyandry

was practised; in others the natives were monogamous. But everywhere the

women appear to have been respected, an insult offered any woman by an

armed man being a capital offence. Almost all the Guanches used to wear

garments of goat-skins, and others of vegetable fibres, which have been

found in the tombs of Grand Canary. They had a taste for ornaments,

necklaces of wood, bone and shells, worked in different designs. Beads

of baked earth, cylindrical and of all shapes, with smooth or polished

surfaces, mostly black and red in colour, were chiefly in use. They

painted their bodies; the _pintaderas_, baked clay objects like seals in

shape, have been explained by Dr Verneau as having been used solely for

painting the body in various colours. They manufactured rough pottery,

mostly without decorations, or ornamented by means of the finger-nail.

The Guanches' weapons were those of the ancient races of south Europe.

The polished battle-axe was more used in Grand Canary, while stone and

obsidian, roughly cut, were commoner in Teneriffe. They had, besides,

the lance, the club, sometimes studded with pebbles, and the javelin,

and they seem to have known the shield. They lived in natural or

artificial caves in their mountains. In districts where cave-dwellings

were impossible, they built small round houses and, according to the

Spaniards, they even practised rude fortification. In Palma the old

people were at their own wish left to die alone. After bidding their

family farewell they were carried to the sepulchral cave, nothing but a

bowl of milk being left them. The Guanches embalmed their dead; many

mummies have been found in an extreme state of desiccation, each

weighing not more than 6 or 7 lb. Two almost inaccessible caves in a

vertical rock by the shore 3 m. from Santa Cruz (Teneriffe) are said

still to contain bones. The process of embalming seems to have varied.

In Teneriffe and Grand Canary the corpse was simply wrapped up in goat

and sheep skins, while in other islands a resinous substance was used to

preserve the body, which was then placed in a cave difficult of access,

or buried under a tumulus. The work of embalming was reserved for a

special class, women for female corpses, men for male. Embalming seems

not to have been universal, and bodies were often simply hidden in caves

or buried.

Little is known of the religion of the Guanches. They appear to have

been a distinctly religious race. There was a general belief in a

supreme being, called Acoran, in Grand Canary, Achihuran in Teneriffe,

Eraoranhan in Hierro, and Abora in Palma. The women of Hierro worshipped

a goddess called Moneiba. According to tradition the male and female

gods lived in mountains whence they descended to hear the prayers of the

people. In other islands the natives venerated the sun, moon, earth and

stars. A belief in an evil spirit was general. The demon of Teneriffe

was called Guayota and lived in the peak of Teyde, which was the hell

called Echeyde. In times of drought the Guanches drove their flocks to

consecrated grounds, where the lambs were separated from their mothers

in the belief that their plaintive bleatings would melt the heart of the

Great Spirit. During the religious feasts all war and even personal

quarrels were stayed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--S. Berthelot, _Antiquites canariennes_ (Paris, 1839);

Baker Webb and S. Berthelot, _Histoire naturelle des iles Canaries_

(Paris, 1839); Paul Broca, _Revue d'anthropologie_, iv. (1874);

General L. L. C. Faidherbe, _Quelque mots sur l'ethnologie de

l'archipel canarien_ (Paris, 1875); Chil y Naranjo, _Estudios

historicos, climatologicos y Patologicos de las Islas Canarias_ (Las

Palmas, 1876-1889); "De la pluralite des races humaines de l'archipel

canarien," _Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris_, 1878; "Habitations et

sepultures des anciens habitants des iles Canaries," _Revue

d'anthrop._, 1879; R. Verneau, "Sur les Semites aux iles Canaries,"

and "Sur les anciens habitants de la Isleta, Grande Canarie," _Bull.

Soc. Anthrop. Paris_, 1881; _Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans

l'archipel canarien_ (Paris, 1887); _Cinq annees de sejour aux iles

Canaries_ (Paris, 1891); H. Meyer, _Die Insel Tenerife_ (Leipzig,

1896), "Uber die Urbewohner der canarischen Inseln," in _Adolf Bastian

Festschrift_ (Berlin, 1896); F. von Luschan, _Anhang uber eine

Schadelsammlung von den canarischen Inseln_; R. Virchow, "Schadel mit

Carionecrosis der Sagittalgegend," _Verhandlungen der Berliner

Anthrop. Gesellschaft_ (1896); G. Sergi, _The Mediterranean Race_

(London, 1901); _The Guanches of Tenerife ..._, by Alonso de Espinosa,

translated by Sir Clements Markham, with bibliography (Hakluyt

Society, 1907).

GUANIDINE, CN3H5 or HN:C(NH2)2, the amidine of amidocarbonic acid. It

occurs in beet juice. It was first prepared in 1861 by A. Strecker, who

oxidized guanine with hydrochloric acid and potassium chlorate. It may

be obtained synthetically by the action of ammonium iodide on cyanamide,

CN.NH2 + NH4I=CN3H5.HI.; by heating ortho-carbonic esters with ammonia

to 150 deg. C.; but best by heating ammonium thiocyanate to 180 deg.-190

deg. C., when the thiourea first formed is converted into guanidine

thiocyanate, 2CS(NH2)2=HN:C(NH2)2.HCNS+H2S. It is a colourless

crystalline solid, readily soluble in water and alcohol; it deliquesces

on exposure to air. It has strong basic properties, absorbs carbon

dioxide readily, and forms well-defined crystalline salts. Baryta water

hydrolyses it to urea. By direct union with glycocoll acid, it yields

glycocyamine, NH2.(HN):C.NH.CH2.CO2H, whilst with methyl glycocoll

(sarcosine) it forms creatine, NH2.(NH):C.N(CH3).CH2.CO2H.

Many derivatives of guanidine were obtained by J. Thiele (_Ann._,

1892, 270, p. 1; 1893, 273, p. 133; _Ber._, 1893, 26, pp. 2598, 2645).

By the action of nitric acid on guanidine in the presence of sulphuric

acid, nitroguanidine, HN:C(NH2).NH.NO2 (a substance possessing acid

properties) is obtained; from which, by reduction with zinc dust,

amidoguanidine, HN:C(NH2).NH.NH2, is formed. This amidoguanidine

decomposes on hydrolysis with the formation of semicarbazide,

NH2.CO.NH.NH2, which, in its turn, breaks down into carbon dioxide,

ammonia and hydrazine. Amidoguanidine is a body of hydrazine type, for

it reduces gold and silver salts and yields a benzylidine derivative.

On oxidation with potassium permanganate, it gives

azodicarbondiamidine nitrate, NH2.(HN):C.N:N.C:(NH).NH2.2HNO3, which,

when reduced by sulphuretted hydrogen, is converted into the

corresponding hydrazodicarbondiamidine, NH2.(HN):C.NH.NH.C:(NH).NH2.

By the action of nitrous acid on a nitric acid solution of

amidoguanidine, diazoguanidine nitrate, NH2.(HN):C.NH.N2.NO3, is

obtained. This diazo compound is decomposed by caustic alkalis with

the formation of cyanamide and hydrazoic acid,

CH4N5.NO3=N3H+CN.NH2+HNO3, whilst acetates and carbonates convert it

into amidotetrazotic acid,

N--N.

//

H2N.C ||.

\\

NH--N

Amidotetrazotic acid yields addition compounds with amines, and by the

further action of nitrous acid yields a very explosive derivative,

diazotetrazol, CN6. By fusing guanidine with urea, dicyandiamidine

H2N.(HN):C.NH.CO.NH2, is formed.

GUANO (a Spanish word from the Peruvian _huanu_, dung), the excrement of

birds, found as large deposits on certain islands off the coast of Peru,

and on others situated in the Southern ocean and off the west coast of

Africa. The large proportions of phosphorus in the form of phosphates

and of nitrogen as ammonium oxalate and urate renders it a valuable

fertilizer. Bat's guano, composed of the excrement of bats, is found in

certain caves in New Zealand and elsewhere; it is similar in composition

to Peruvian guano. (See MANURES AND MANURING.)

GUANTA, a port on the Caribbean coast of the state of Bermudez,

Venezuela, 12 m. N.E. of Barcelona, with which it is connected by rail.

It dates from the completion of the railway to the coal mines of

Naricual and Capiricual nearly 12 m. beyond Barcelona, and was created

for the shipment of coal. The harbour is horseshoe-shaped, with its

entrance, 1998 ft. wide, protected by an island less than 1 m. off the

shore. The entrance is easy and safe, and the harbour affords secure

anchorage for large vessels, with deep water alongside the iron railway

wharf. These advantages have made Guanta the best port on this part of

the coast, and the trade of Barcelona and that of a large inland

district have been transferred to it. A prominent feature in its trade

is the shipment of live cattle. Among its exports are sugar, coffee,

cacao, tobacco and fruit.

GUANTANAMO, the easternmost important town of the S. coast of Cuba, in

the province of Santiago, about 40 m. E. of Santiago. Pop. (1907)

14,559. It is situated by the Guazo (or Guaso) river, on a little open

plain between the mountains. The beautiful, land-locked harbour, 10 m.

long from N. to S. and 4 m. wide in places, has an outer and an inner

basin. The latter has a very narrow entrance, and 2 to 2.5 fathoms depth

of water. From the port of Caimanera to the city of Guantanamo, 13 m.

N., there is a railway, and the city has railway connexion with

Santiago. Guantanamo is one of the two ports leased by Cuba to the

United States for a naval station. It is the shipping-port and centre of

a surrounding coffee-, sugar- and lime-growing district. In 1741 an

English force under Admiral Edward Vernon and General Thomas Wentworth

landed here to attack Santiago. They named the harbour Cumberland bay.

After their retreat fortifications were begun. The history of the region

practically dates, however, from the end of the 18th century, when it

gained prosperity from the settlement of French refugees from Santo

Domingo; the town, as such, dates only from 1822. Almost all the old

families are of French descent, and French was the language locally most

used as late as the last third of the 19th century. In recent years,

especially since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the region has

greatly changed socially and economically. Guantanamo was once a

fashionable summer residence resort for wealthy Cubans.

GUARANA (so called from the Guaranis, an aboriginal American tribe), the

plant _Paullinia Cupana_ (or _P. sorbilis_) of the natural order

_Sapindaceae_, indigenous to the north and west of Brazil. It has a

smooth erect stem; large pinnate alternate leaves, composed of 5

oblong-oval leaflets; narrow panicles of short-stalked flowers; and

ovoid or pyriform fruit about as large as a grape, and containing

usually one seed only, which is shaped like a minute horse-chestnut.

What is commonly known as guarana, guarana bread or Brazilian cocoa, is

prepared from the seeds as follows. In October and November, at which

time they become ripe, the seeds are removed from their capsules and

sun-dried, so as to admit of the ready removal by hand of the white

aril; they are next ground in a stone mortar or deep dish of hard

sandstone; the powder, moistened by the addition of a small quantity of

water, or by exposure to the dews, is then made into a paste with a

certain proportion of whole or broken seeds, and worked up sometimes

into balls, but usually into rolls not unlike German sausages, 5 to 8

in. in length, and 12 to 16 oz. in weight. After drying by artificial or

solar heat, the guarana is packed between broad leaves in sacks or

baskets. Thus prepared, it is of extreme hardness, and has a brown hue,

a bitter astringent taste, and an odour faintly resembling that of

roasted coffee. An inferior kind, softer and of a lighter colour, is

manufactured by admixture of cocoa or cassava. Rasped or grated into

sugar and water, guarana forms a beverage largely consumed in S.

America. Its manufacture, originally confined to the Mauhes Indians, has

spread into various parts of Brazil.

The properties of guarana as a nervous stimulant and restorative are

due to the presence of what was originally described as a new

principle and termed guaranine, but is now known to be identical with

caffeine or theine. Besides this substance, which is stated to exist

in it in the form of tannate, guarana yields on analysis the glucoside

saponin, with tannin, starch, gum, three volatile oils, and an acrid

green fixed oil (Fournier, _Journ. de Pharm._ vol. xxxix., 1861, p.

291).

GUARANIS, a tribe and stock of South American Indians, having their home

in Paraguay, Uruguay and on the Brazilian coast. The Guaranis had

developed some civilization before the arrival of the Spaniards, and

being a peaceable people quickly submitted. They form to-day the chief

element in the populations of Paraguay and Uruguay. Owing to its

patronage by the Jesuit missionaries the Guarani language became a

widespread medium of communication, and in a corrupted form is still

the common language in Paraguay.

GUARANTEE (sometimes spelt "guarantie" or "guaranty"; an O. Fr. form of

"warrant," from the Teutonic word which appears in German as _wahren_,

to defend or make safe and binding), a term more comprehensive and of

higher import than either "warrant" or "security," and designating

either some international treaty whereby claims, rights or possessions

are secured, or more commonly a mere private transaction, by means of

which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for

another, engages to be answerable for him.

In English law, a guarantee is a contract to answer for the payment of

some debt, or the performance of some duty, by a third person who is

_primarily_ liable to such payment or performance. It is a _collateral_

contract, which does not extinguish the original liability or obligation

to which it is accessory, but on the contrary is itself rendered null

and void should the latter fail, as without a principal there can be no

accessory. The liabilities of a surety are in law dependent upon those

of the principal debtor, and when the latter cease the former do so

likewise (_per_ Collins, L.J., in _Stacey_ v. _Hill_, 1901, 1 K.B., at

p. 666; see _per_ Willes, J., in _Bateson_ v. _Gosling_, 1871, L.R. 7

C.P., at p. 14), except in certain cases where the discharge of the

principal debtor is by operation of law (see _In re Fitzgeorge--ex parte

Robson_, 1905, 1 K.B. p. 462). If, therefore, persons wrongly suppose

that a third person is liable to one of them, and a guarantee is given

on that erroneous supposition, it is invalid _ab initio_, by virtue of

the _lex contractus_, because its foundation (which was that another was

taken to be liable) has failed (_per_ Willes, J., in _Mountstephen_ v.

_Lakeman_, L.R. 7 Q.B. p. 202). According to various existing codes

civil, a suretyship, in respect of an obligation "non-valable," is null

and void save where the invalidity is the result of personal incapacity

of the principal debtor (Codes Civil, France and Belgium, 2012; Spain,

1824; Portugal, 822; Italy, 1899; Holland, 1858; Lower Canada, 1932). In

some countries, however, the mere personal incapacity of a son under age

to borrow suffices to vitiate the guarantee of a loan made to him

(Spain, 1824; Portugal, 822, s. 2, 1535, 1536). The Egyptian codes

sanction guarantees expressly entered into "in view of debtor's want of

legal capacity" to contract a valid principal obligation (Egyptian

Codes, Mixed Suits, 605; Native Tribunals, 496). The Portuguese code

(art. 822, s. 1) retains the surety's liability, in respect of an

invalid principal obligation, until the latter has been legally

rescinded.

The giver of a guarantee is called "the surety," or "the guarantor"; the

person to whom it is given "the creditor," or "the guarantee"; while the

person whose payment or performance is secured thereby is termed "the

principal debtor," or simply "the principal." In America, but not

apparently elsewhere, there is a recognized distinction between "a

surety" and "a guarantor"; the former being usually bound with the

principal, at the same time and on the same consideration, while the

contract of the latter is his own separate undertaking, in which the

principal does not join, and in respect of which he is not to be held

liable, until due diligence has been exerted to compel the principal

debtor to make good his default. There is no privity of contract between

the surety and the principal debtor, for the surety contracts with the

creditor, and they do not constitute in law one person, and are not

jointly liable to the creditor (_per_ Baron Parke in _Bain_ v. _Cooper_,

1 Dowl. R. (N.S.) 11, 14).

No special phraseology is necessary to the formation of a guarantee; and

what really distinguishes such a contract from one of insurance is not

any essential difference between the two forms of words _insurance_ and

_guarantee_, but the substance of the contract entered into by the

parties in each particular case (_per_ Romer, L.J., in _Seaton_ v.

_Heath_--_Seaton_ v. _Burnand_, 1899, 1 Q.B. 782, 792, C.A.; _per_

Vaughan Williams, L.J., in _In re Denton's Estate Licenses Insurance

Corporation and Guarantee Fund Ltd._ v. _Denton_, 1904, 2 Ch., at p.

188; and see _Dane_ v. _Mortgage Insurance Corporation_, 1894, 1 Q.B. 54

C.A.) In this connexion it may be mentioned that the different kinds of

suretyships have been classified as follows: (1) Those in which there is

an agreement to constitute, for a particular purpose, the relation of

principal and surety, to which agreement the creditor thereby secured is

a party; (2) those in which there is a similar agreement between the

principal and surety only, to which the creditor is a stranger; and (3)

those in which, without any such contract of suretyship, there is a

primary and a secondary liability of two persons for one and the same

debt, the debt being, as between the two, that of one of those persons

only, and not equally of both, so that the other, if he should be

compelled to pay it, would be entitled to reimbursement from the person

by whom (as between the two) it ought to have been paid (_per_ Earl of

Selborne, L.C., _in Duncan Fox and Co._ v. _North and South Wales Bank_,

6 App. Cas., at p. 11). According to several codes civil sureties are

made divisible into conventional, legal and judicial (Fr. and Bel.,

2015, 2040 et seq.; Spain, 1823; Lower Canada, 1930), while the Spanish

code further divides them into gratuitous and for valuable consideration

(art. 1, 823).

In England the common-law requisites of a guarantee in no way differ

from those essential to the formation of any other contract. That is to

say, they comprise the mutual assent of two or more parties, competency

to contract, and, unless the guarantee be under seal, valuable

consideration. An offer to guarantee is not binding until it has been

accepted, being revocable till then by the party making it. Unless,

however, as sometimes happens, the offer contemplates an express

acceptance, one may be implied, and it may be a question for a jury

whether an offer of guarantee has in fact been accepted. Where the

surety's assent to a guarantee has been procured by fraud of the person

to whom it is given, there is no binding contract. Such fraud may

consist of suppression or concealment or misrepresentation. There is

some conflict of authorities as to what facts must be spontaneously

disclosed to the surety by the creditor, but it may be taken that the

rule on the subject is less stringent than that governing insurances

upon marine, life and other risks (_The North British Insurance Co._ v.

_Lloyd_, 10 Exch. 523), though formerly this was denied (_Owen_ v.

_Homan_, 3 Mac. & G. 378, 397). Moreover, even where the contract relied

upon is in the form of a policy guaranteeing the solvency of a surety

for another's debt, and is therefore governed by the doctrine of

_uberrima_ fides, only such facts as are really material to the risk

undertaken need be spontaneously disclosed (_Seaton_ v.

_Burnand_--_Burnand_ v. _Seaton_, 1900, A.C. 135). As regards the

competency of the parties to enter into a contract of guarantee, this

may be affected by insanity or intoxication of the surety, if known to

the creditor, or by disability of any kind. The ordinary disabilities

are those of infants and married women--now in England greatly mitigated

as regards the latter by the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870 to

1893, which enable a married woman to contract, as a _feme sole_, to the

extent of her separate property. Every guarantee not under seal must

according to English law have a consideration to support it, though the

least spark of one suffices (_per_ Wilmot, J., in _Pillan_ v. _van

Mierop and Hopkins_, 3 Burr., at p. 1666; _Haigh_ v. _Brooks_, 10 A. &

E. 309; _Barrell_ v. _Trussell_, 4 Taunt. 117), which, as in other

cases, may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit

accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or

responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In some

guarantees the consideration is entire--as where, in consideration of a

lease being granted, the surety becomes answerable for the performance

of the covenants; in other cases it is fragmentary, i.e. supplied from

time to time--as where a guarantee is given to secure the balance of a

running account at a banker's, or a balance of a running account for

goods supplied (_per_ Lush, L.J., in _Lloyd's_ v. _Harper_, 16 Ch. Div.,

at p. 319). In the former case, the moment the lease is granted there is

nothing more for the lessor to do, and such a guarantee as that of

necessity runs on throughout the duration of the lease and is

irrevocable. In the latter case, however, unless the guarantee

stipulates to the contrary, the surety may at any time terminate his

liability under the guarantee as to _future_ advances, &c. The

consideration for a guarantee must not be _past_ or _executed_, but on

the other hand it need not comprise a direct benefit or advantage to

either the surety or the creditor, but may solely consist of anything

done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor. It

is more frequently _executory_ than _concurrent_, taking the form either

of forbearance to sue the principal debtor, or of a future advance of

money or supply of goods to him.

By the Indian Contract Act 1872, sect. 127, it is provided that the

consideration for a guarantee may consist of anything done or any

promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor by the creditor.

Total failure of the consideration stipulated for by the party giving a

guarantee will prevent its being enforced, as will also the existence of

an illegal consideration. Though in all countries the mutual assent of

two or more parties is essential to the formation of any contract (see

e.g. Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 1108; Port. 643, 647 et seq.; Spain,

1258, 1261; Italy, 1104; Holl. 1356; Lower Canada, 984), a consideration

is not everywhere regarded as a necessary element (see Pothier's _Law of

Obligations_, Evans's edition, vol. ii. p. 19). Thus in Scotland a

contract may be binding without a consideration to support it (Stair i.

10. 7).

The statutory requisites of a guarantee are, in England, prescribed by

(1) the Statute of Frauds, which, with reference to guarantees, provides

that "no action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant upon

any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of

another person, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be

brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and

signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person

thereunto by him lawfully authorized," and (2) Lord Tenterden's Act (9

Geo. IV. c. 14), which by S 6 enacts that "no action shall be brought

whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or

assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character,

conduct, credit, ability, trade or dealings of any other person, to the

intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money or

goods upon" (i.e. "upon credit," see _per_ Parke, B., in _Lyde_ v.

_Barnard_, 1 M. & W., at p. 104), "unless such representation or

assurance be made in writing signed by the party to be charged

therewith." This latter enactment, which applies to incorporated

companies as well as to individual persons (_Hirst_ v. _West Riding

Union Banking Co._, 1901, 2 K.B. 560 C.A.), was rendered necessary by an

evasion of the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, accomplished by

treating the special promise to answer for another's debt, default or

miscarriage, when not in writing, as required by that section, as a

false and fraudulent representation concerning another's credit,

solvency or honesty, in respect of which damages, as for a tort, were

held to be recoverable (_Pasley_ v. _Freeman_, 3 T.R. 51). In Scotland,

where, it should be stated, a guarantee is called a "cautionary

obligation," similar enactments to those just specified are contained in

S 6 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, while in the

Irish Statute of Frauds (7 Will. III. c. 12) there is a provision (S 2)

identical with that found in the English Statute of Frauds. In India a

guarantee may be either oral or written (Indian Contract Act, S 126),

while in the Australian colonies, Jamaica and Ceylon it must be in

writing. The German code civil requires the surety's promise to be

verified by writing where he has not executed the principal obligation

(art. 766), and the Portuguese code renders a guarantee provable by all

the modes established by law for the proof of the principal contract

(art. 826). According to most codes civil now in force a guarantee like

any other contract can usually be made verbally in the presence of

witnesses and in certain cases (where for instance considerable sums of

money are involved) _sous signature privee_ or else by judicial or

notarial instrument (see Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 1341; Spain, 1244;

Port. 2506, 2513; Italy, 1341 et seq.; Pothier's _Law of Obligations_,

Evans's ed. i. 257; Burge on _Suretyship_, p. 19; van der Linden's

_Institutes of Holland_, p. 120); the French and Belgian Codes,

moreover, provide that suretyship is not to be presumed but must always

be expressed (art. 2015).

The Statute of Frauds does not invalidate a verbal guarantee, but

renders it unenforceable by action. It may therefore be available in

support of a defence to an action, and money paid under it cannot be

recovered. An indemnity is not a guarantee within the statute, unless it

contemplates the primary liability of a third person. It need not,

therefore, be in writing when it is a mere promise to become liable for

a debt, whenever the person to whom the promise is made should become

liable (_Wildes_ v. _Dudlow_, L.R. 19 Eq. 198; _per_ Vaughan Williams,

L.J. in _Harburg India-Rubber Co._ v. _Martin_, 1902, 1 K.B. p. 786;

_Guild_ v. _Conrad_, 1894, 2 Q.B. 885 C.A.). Neither does the statute

apply to the promise of a _del credere_ agent, which binds him, in

consideration of the higher commission he receives, to make no sales on

behalf of his principal except to persons who are absolutely solvent,

and renders him liable for any loss that may result from the

non-fulfilment of his promise. A promise to _give_ a guarantee is,

however, within the statute, though not one to _procure_ a guarantee.

The general principles which determine what are guarantees within the

Statute of Frauds, as deduced from a multitude of decided cases, are

briefly as follows: (1) the primary liability of a third person must

exist or be contemplated as the foundation of the contract (_Birkmyr_ v.

_Darnell_, 1 Sm. L.C. 11th ed. p. 299; _Mountstephen_ v. _Lakeman_, L.R.

7 Q.B. 196; L.R. 7 H.L. 17); (2) the promise must be made to the

creditor; (3) there must be an absence of all liability on the part of

the surety independently of his express promise of guarantee; (4) the

main object of the transaction between the parties to the guarantee must

be the fulfilment of a third party's obligation (see _Harburg

India-rubber Comb Co._ v. _Martin_, 1902, 1 K.B. 778, 786); and (5) the

contract entered into must not amount to a sale by the creditor to the

promiser of a security for a debt or of the debt itself (see de Colyar's

_Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety_, 3rd ed. pp. 65-161,

where these principles are discussed in detail by the light of decided

cases there cited).

As regards the kind of note or memorandum of the guarantee that will

satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it is now provided by S 3 of the

Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, that "no special promise to be made,

by any person after the passing of this act, to answer for the debt,

default or miscarriage of another person, being in writing and signed by

the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him thereunto

lawfully authorized, shall be deemed invalid to support an action, suit

or other proceeding, to charge the person by whom such promise shall

have been made, by reason only that the consideration for such promise

does not appear in writing or by necessary inference from a written

document." Prior to this enactment, which is not retrospective in its

operation, it was held in many cases that as the Statute of Frauds

requires "the agreement" to be in writing, all parts thereof were

required so to be, including the consideration moving to, as well as the

promise by, the party to be charged (_Wain_ v. _Walters_, 5 East, 10;

_Sounders_ v. _Wakefield_, 4 B. & Ald. 595). These decisions, however,

proved to be burdensome to the mercantile community, especially in

Scotland and the north of England, and ultimately led to the alteration

of the law, so far as guarantees are concerned, by means of the

enactment already specified. Any writing embodying the terms of the

agreement between the parties, and signed by the party to be charged, is

sufficient; and the idea of agreement need not be present to the mind of

the person signing (_per_ Lindley, L.J., in _In re_ Hoyle--_Hoyle_ v.

_Hoyle_, 1893, 1 Ch., at p. 98). It is, however, necessary that the

names of the contracting parties should appear somewhere in writing;

that the party to be charged, or his agent, should sign the memorandum

or note of agreement, or else should sign another paper referring

thereto; and that, when the note or memorandum is made, a complete

agreement shall exist. Moreover, the memorandum must have been made

before action brought, though it need not be contemporaneous with the

agreement itself. As regards the stamping of the memorandum or note of

agreement, a guarantee cannot, in England, be given in evidence unless

properly stamped (Stamp Act 1891). A guarantee for the payment of goods,

however, requires no stamp, being within the exception contained in the

first schedule of the act. Nor is it necessary to stamp a written

representation or assurance as to character within 9 Geo. IV. c. 14,

_supra_. If under seal, a guarantee requires sometimes an _ad valorem_

stamp and sometimes a ten-shilling stamp; in other cases a sixpenny

stamp generally suffices; and, on certain prescribed terms, the stamps

can be affixed any time after execution (Stamp Act 1891, S 15, amended

by S 15 of the Finance Act 1895).

Extent of surety's liability.

The liability incurred by a surety under his guarantee depends upon its

terms, and is not necessarily co-extensive with that of the principal

debtor. It is, however, obvious that as the surety's obligation is

merely accessory to that of the principal it cannot as such exceed it

(de Colyar, _Law of Guarantees_, 3rd ed. p. 233; Burge, _Suretyship_, p.

5). By the Roman law, if there were any such excess the surety's

obligation was rendered _wholly_ void and not merely void _pro tanto_.

By many existing codes civil, however, a guarantee which imposes on the

surety a greater liability than that of the principal is not thereby

invalidated, but the liability is merely reducible to that of the

principal (Fr. and Bel. 2013; Port. 823; Spain, 1826; Italy, 1900;

Holland, 1859; Lower Canada, 1933). By sec. 128 of the Indian Contract

Act 1872 the liability of the surety is, unless otherwise provided by

contract, coextensive with that of the principal. Where the liability of

the surety is _less_ extensive in amount than that of the principal

debtor, difficult questions have arisen in England and America as to

whether the surety is liable only for _part_ of the debt equal to the

limit of his liability, or, up to such limit, for the _whole_ debt

(_Ellis_ v. _Emmanuel_, 1 Ex. Div. 157; _Hobson_ v. _Bass_, 6 Ch. App.

792; Brandt, _Suretyship_, sec. 219). The surety cannot be made liable

except for a loss sustained by reason of the default guaranteed against.

Moreover, in the case of a joint and several guarantee by several

sureties, unless all sign it none are liable thereunder (_National Pro.

Bk. of England_ v. _Brackenbury_, 1906, 22 _Times_ L.R. 797). It was

formerly considered in England to be the duty of the party taking a

guarantee to see that it was couched in language enabling the party

giving it to understand clearly to what extent he was binding himself

(_Nicholson_ v. _Paget_, 1 C. & M. 48, 52). This view, however, can no

longer be sustained, it being now recognized that a guarantee, like any

other contract, must, in cases of ambiguity, be construed against the

party bound thereby and in favour of the party receiving it (_Mayer_ v.

_Isaac_, 6 M. & W. 605, 612; _Wood_ v. _Priestner_, L.R. 2 Exch. 66,

71). The surety is not to be changed beyond the limits prescribed by his

contract, which must be construed so as to give effect to what may

fairly be inferred to have been the intention of the parties, from what

they themselves have expressed in writing. In cases of doubtful import,

recourse to parol evidence is permissible, to explain, but not to

contradict, the written evidence of the guarantee. As a general rule,

the surety is not liable if the principal debt cannot be enforced,

because, as already explained, the obligation of the surety is merely

accessory to that of the principal debtor. It has never been actually

decided in England whether this rule holds good in cases where the

principal debtor is an infant, and on that account is not liable to the

creditor. Probably in such a case the surety might be held liable by

estoppel (see _Kimball_ v. _Newell_, 7 Hill (N.Y.) 116). When directors

guarantee the performance by their company of a contract which is ultra

vires, and therefore not binding on the latter, the directors'

suretyship liability is, nevertheless, enforceable against them

(_Yorkshire Railway Waggon Co._ v. _Maclure_, 21 Ch. D. 309 C.A.).

It is not always easy to determine for how long a time liability under a

guarantee endures. Sometimes a guarantee is limited to a single

transaction, and is obviously intended to be security against one

specific default only. On the other hand, it as often happens that it is

not exhausted by one transaction on the faith of it, but extends to a

series of transactions, and remains a standing security until it is

revoked, either by the act of the parties or else by the death of the

surety. It is then termed a continuing guarantee. No fixed rules of

interpretation determine whether a guarantee is a continuing one or

not, but each case must be judged on its individual merits; and

frequently, in order to achieve a correct construction, it becomes

necessary to examine the surrounding circumstances, which often reveal

what was the subject-matter which the parties contemplated when the

guarantee was given, and likewise what was the scope and object of the

transaction between them. Most continuing guarantees are either ordinary

mercantile securities, in respect of advances made or goods supplied to

the principal debtor or else bonds for the good behaviour of persons in

public or private offices or employments. With regard to the latter

class of continuing guarantees, the surety's liability is, generally

speaking, revoked by any change in the constitution of the persons to or

for whom the guarantee is given. On this subject it is now provided by

section 18 of the Partnership Act 1890, which applies to Scotland as

well as England, that "a continuing guarantee or cautionary obligation

given either to a firm or to a third person in respect of the

transactions of a firm, is, in the absence of agreement to the contrary,

revoked as to future transactions by any change in the constitution of

the firm to which, or of the firm in respect of the transactions of

which the guaranty or obligation was given." This section, like the

enactment it replaces, namely, sec. 4 of the Mercantile Law Amendment

Act 1856, is mainly declaratory of the English common law, as embodied

in decided cases, which indicate that the changes in the persons to or

for whom a guarantee is given may consist either of an increase in their

number, of a diminution thereof caused by death or retirement from

business, or of the incorporation or consolidation of the persons to

whom the guarantee is given. In this connexion it may be stated that the

Government Offices (Security) Act 1875, which has been amended by the

Statute Law Revision Act 1883, contains certain provisions with regard

to the acceptance by the heads of public departments of guarantees given

by companies for the due performance of the duties of an office or

employment in the public service, and enables the Commissioners of His

Majesty's Treasury to vary the character of any security, for good

behaviour by public servants, given after the passing of the act.

Before the surety can be rendered liable on his guarantee, the principal

debtor must have made default. When, however, this has occurred, the

creditor, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, may sue

the surety, without even informing him of such default having taken

place, or requiring him to pay, and before proceeding against the

principal debtor or resorting to securities for the debt received from

the latter. In those countries where the municipal law is based on the

Roman civil law, sureties usually possess the right (which may, however,

be renounced by them) originally conferred by the Roman law, of

compelling the creditor to insist on the goods, &c. (if any) of the

principal debtor being first "discussed," i.e. appraised and sold, and

appropriated to the liquidation of the debt guaranteed (see Codes Civil,

Fr. and Bel. 2021 et seq.; Spain, 1830, 1831; Port. 830; Germany, 771,

772, 773; Holland, 1868; Italy, 1907; Lower Canada, 1941-1942; Egypt

[mixed suits] 612; _ibid._ [native tribunals] 502), before having

recourse to the sureties. This right, according to a great American

jurist (Chancellor Kent in _Hayes_ v. _Ward_, 4 Johns. New York, Ch.

Cas. p. 132), "accords with a common sense of justice and the natural

equity of mankind." In England this right has never been fully

recognized. Neither does it prevail in America nor, since the passing of

the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, s. 8, is it any longer

available in Scotland where, prior to the last-named enactment, the

benefit of discussion, as it is termed, existed. In England, however,

before any demand for payment has been made by the creditor on the

surety, the latter can, as soon as the principal debtor has made

default, compel the creditor, on giving him an indemnity against costs

and expenses, to sue the principal debtor if the latter be solvent and

able to pay (_per_ A. L. Smith, L.J., in _Rouse_ v. _Bradford Banking

Company_, 1894, 2 Ch. 75; _per_ Lord Eldon in _Wright_ v. _Simpson_, 6

Ves., at p. 733), and a similar remedy is also open to the surety in

America (see Brandt on _Suretyship_, par. 205, p. 290) though in

neither of these countries nor in Scotland can one of several sureties,

when sued for the whole guaranteed debt by the creditor, compel the

latter to divide his claim amongst all the solvent sureties, and reduce

it to the share and proportion of each surety. However, this _beneficium

divisionis_, as it is called in Roman law, is recognized by many

existing codes (Fr. and Bel. 2025-2027; Spain, 1837; Portugal, 835-836;

Germany, 426; Holland, 1873-1874; Italy, 1911-1912; Lower Canada, 1946;

Egypt [mixed suits], 615, 616).

The usual mode in England of enforcing liability under a guarantee is by

action in the High Court or in the county court. It is also permissible

for the creditor to obtain redress by means of a set-off or

counter-claim, in an action brought against him by the surety. On the

other hand, the surety may now, in any court in which the action on the

guarantee is pending, avail himself of any set-off which may exist

between the principal debtor and the creditor. Moreover, if one of

several sureties for the same debt is sued by the creditor or his

guarantee, he can, by means of a proceeding termed a third-party notice,

claim contribution from his co-surety towards the common liability.

Independent proof of the surety's liability under his guarantee must

always be given at the trial; as the creditor cannot rely either on

admissions made by the principal debtor, or on a judgment or award

obtained against him (_Ex parte Young In re Kitchin_, 17 Ch. Div. 668).

Should the surety become bankrupt either before or after default has

been made by the principal debtor, the creditor will have to prove

against his estate. This right of proof is now in England regulated by

the 37th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which is most

comprehensive in its terms.

Rights of sureties.

A person liable as a surety for another under a guarantee possesses

various rights against him, against the person to whom the guarantee is

given, and also against those who may have become co-sureties in respect

of the same debt, default or miscarriage. As regards the surety's rights

against the principal debtor, the latter may, where the guarantee was

made with his consent but not otherwise (see _Hodgson_ v. _Shaw_, 3 Myl.

& K. at p. 190), after he has made default, be compelled by the surety

to exonerate him from liability by payment of the guaranteed debt (_per_

Sir W. Grant, M.R., in _Antrobus_ v. _Davidson_, 3 Meriv. 569, 579;

_per_ Lindley, L.J., in _Johnston_ v. _Salvage Association_, 19 Q.B.D.

460, 461; and see _Wolmershausen_ v. _Gullick_, 1893, 2 Ch. 514). The

moment, moreover, the surety has himself paid any portion of the

guaranteed debt, he is entitled to rank as a creditor for the amount so

paid, and to compel repayment thereof. In the event of the principal

debtor's bankruptcy, the surety can in England, if the creditor has not

already proved in respect of the guaranteed debt, prove against the

bankrupt's estate, not only in respect of payments made before the

bankruptcy of the principal debtor, but also, it seems, in respect of

the contingent liability to pay under the guarantee (see _Ex parte

Delmar re Herepath_, 1889, 38 W.R. 752), while if the creditor has

already proved, the surety who has paid the guaranteed debt has a right

to all dividends received by the creditor from the bankrupt in respect

thereof, and to stand in the creditor's place as to future dividends.

This right is, however, often waived by the guarantee stipulating that,

until the creditor has received full payment of all sums over and above

the guaranteed debt, due to him from the principal debtor, the surety

shall not participate in any dividends distributed from the bankrupt's

estate amongst his creditors. As regards the rights of the surety

against the creditor, they are in England exercisable even by one who in

the first instance was a principal debtor, but has since become a

surety, by arrangement with his creditor, duly notified to the creditor,

though not even sanctioned by him. This was decided by the House of

Lords in the case of _Rouse_ v. _The Bradford Banking Co._, 1894, A.C.

586, removing a doubt created by the previous case of _Swire_ v.

_Redman_, 1 Q.B.D. 536, which must now be treated as overruled. The

surety's principal right against the creditor entitles him, after

payment of the guaranteed debt, to the benefit of all securities,

whether known to him (the surety) or not, which the creditor held

against the principal debtor; and where, by default or _laches_ of the

creditor, such securities have been lost, or rendered otherwise

unavailable, the surety is discharged _pro tanto_. This right, which is

_not_ in abeyance till the surety is called on to pay (_Dixon_ v.

_Steel_, 1901, 2 Ch. 602), extends to all securities, whether satisfied

or not, given before or after the contract of suretyship was entered

into. On this subject the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, S 5,

provides that "every person who being surety for the debt or duty of

another, or being liable with another for any debt or duty, shall pay

such debt or perform such duty, shall be entitled to have assigned to

him, or to a trustee for him, every judgment, specialty, or other

security, which shall be held by the creditor in respect of such debt or

duty, whether such judgment, specialty, or other security shall or shall

not be deemed at law to have been satisfied by the payment of the debt

or performance of the duty, and such person shall be entitled to stand

in the place of the creditor, and to use all the remedies, and, if need

be, and upon a proper indemnity, to use the name of the creditor, in any

action or other proceeding at law or in equity, in order to obtain from

the principal debtor, or any co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, as

the case may be, indemnification for the advances made and loss

sustained by the person who shall have so paid such debt or performed

such duty; and such payment or performance so made by such surety shall

not be pleadable in bar of any such action or other proceeding by him,

provided always that no co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor shall be

entitled to recover from any other co-surety, co-contractor, or

co-debtor, by the means aforesaid, more than the just proportion to

which, as between those parties themselves, such last-mentioned person

shall be justly liable." This enactment is so far retrospective that it

applies to a contract made before the act, where the breach thereof, and

the payment by the surety, have taken place subsequently. The right of

the surety to be subrogated, on payment by him of the guaranteed debt,

to all the rights of the creditor against the principal debtor is

recognized in America (_Tobin_ v. _Kirk_, 80 New York S.C.R. 229), and

many other countries (Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2029; Spain, 1839; Port.

839; Germany, 774; Holland, 1877; Italy, 1916; Lower Canada, 2959; Egypt

[mixed suits], 617; _ibid._ [native tribunals], 505).

As regards the rights of the surety against a co-surety, he is entitled

to contribution from him in respect of their common liability. This

particular right is not the result of any contract, but is derived from

a general equity, on the ground of equality of burden and benefit, and

exists whether the sureties be bound jointly, or jointly and severally,

and by the same, or different, instruments. There is, however, no right

of contribution where each surety is severally bound for a given portion

only of the guaranteed debt; nor in the case of a surety for a surety;

(see _In re Denton's Estate_, 1904, 2 Ch. 178 C.A.); nor where a person

becomes a surety jointly with another and at the latter's request.

Contribution may be enforced, either before payment, or as soon as the

surety has paid more than his share of the common debt (_Wolmershausen_

v. _Gullick_, 1803, 2 Ch. 514); and the amount recoverable is now always

regulated by the number of solvent sureties, though formerly this rule

only prevailed in equity. In the event of the bankruptcy of a surety,

proof can be made against his estate by a co-surety for any excess over

the latter's contributive share. The right of contribution is not the

only right possessed by co-sureties against each other, but they are

also entitled to the benefit of all securities which have been taken by

any one of them as an indemnity against the liability incurred for the

principal debtor. The Roman law did not recognize the right of

contribution amongst sureties. It is, however, sanctioned by many

existing codes (Fr. and Bel. 2033; Germany, 426, 474; Italy, 1920;

Holland, 1881; Spain, 1844; Port. 845; Lower Canada, 1955; Egypt [mixed

suits], 618, _ibid._ [native tribunals], 506), and also by the Indian

Contract Act 1872, ss. 146-147.

The discharge of a surety from liability under his guarantee may be

accomplished In various ways, he being regarded, especially in England

and America, as a "favoured debtor" (_per_ Turner, L.J., in _Wheatley_

v. _Bastow_, 7 De G. M. & G. 279, 280; _per_ Earl of Selborne, L.C., in

_In re Sherry--London and County Banking Co._ v. _Terry_, 25 Ch. D., at

p. 703; and see Brandt on _Suretyship_, secs. 79, 80). Thus, fraud

subsequent to the execution of the guarantee (as where, for example, the

creditor connives at the principal debtor's default) will certainly

discharge the surety. Again, a material alteration made by the creditor

in the instrument of guarantee after its execution may also have this

effect. The most prolific ground of discharge, however, is usually

traceable to causes originating in the creditor's laches or conduct, the

governing principle being that if the creditor violates any rights which

the surety possessed when he entered into the suretyship, even though

the damage be nominal only, the guarantee cannot be enforced. On this

subject it suffices to state that the surety's discharge may be

accomplished (1) by a variation of the terms of the contract between the

creditor and the principal debtor, or of that subsisting between the

creditor and the surety (see _Rickaby_ v. _Lewis_, 22 T.L.R. 130); (2)

by the creditor taking a new security from the principal debtor in lieu

of the original one; (3) by the creditor discharging the principal

debtor from liability; (4) by the creditor binding himself to give time

to the principal debtor for payment of the guaranteed debt; or (5) by

loss of securities received by the creditor in respect of the guaranteed

debt.

In this connexion It may be stated in general terms that whatever

extinguishes the principal obligation necessarily determines that of the

surety (which is accessory thereto), not only in England but elsewhere

also (Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2034, 2038; Spain, 1847; Port. 848;

Lower Canada, 1956; 1960; Egypt [mixed suits], 622, _ibid._ [native

tribunals], 509; Indian Contract Act 1872, sec. 134), and that, by most

of the codes civil now in force, the surety is discharged by _laches_ or

conduct of the creditor inconsistent with the surety's rights (see Fr.

and Bel. 2037; Spain, 1852; Port. 853; Germany, 776; Italy, 1928; Egypt

[mixed suits], 623), though it may be mentioned that the rule prevailing

in England, Scotland, America and India which releases the surety from

liability where the creditor, by binding contract with the principal,

extends without the surety's consent the time for fulfilling the

principal obligation, while recognized by two existing codes civil

(Spain, 1851; Port. 852), is rejected by the majority of them (Fr. and

Bel. 2039; Holland, 1887; Italy, 1930; Lower Canada, 1961; Egypt [mixed

suits], 613; _ib._ [native tribunals], 503); (and see Morice, _English

and Dutch Law_, p. 96; van der Linden, _Institutes of Holland_, pp.

120-121). A revocation of the contract of suretyship by act of the

parties, or in certain cases by the death of the surety, may also

operate to discharge the surety. The death of a surety does not _per se_

determine the guarantee, but, save where from its nature the guarantee

is irrevocable by the surety himself, it can be revoked by express

notice after his death, or, it would appear, by the creditor becoming

affected with constructive notice thereof; except where, under the

testator's will, the executor has the option of continuing the

guarantee, in which case the executor should, it seems, specifically

withdraw the guarantee in order to determine it. Where one of a number

of joint and several sureties dies, the future liability of the

survivors under the guarantee continues, at all events until it has been

determined by express notice. Moreover, when three persons joined in a

guarantee to a bank, and their liability thereunder was not expressed to

be several, it was held that the death of one surety did not determine

the liability of the survivors. In such a case, however, the estate of

the deceased surety would be relieved from liability.

The Statutes of Limitation bar the right of action on guarantees under

seal after twenty years, and on other guarantees after six years, from

the date when the creditor might have sued the surety.

AUTHORITIES.--De Colyar, _Law of Guarantees and of Principal and

Surety_ (3rd ed., 1897); American edition, by J. A. Morgan (1875);

Throop, _Validity of Verbal Agreements_; Fell, _Guarantees_ (2nd

ed.); Theobald, _Law of Principal and Surety_; Brandt, _Law of

Suretyships and Guarantee_; article by de Colyar in _Journal of

Comparative Legislation_ (1905), on "Suretyship from the Standpoint of

Comparative Jurisprudence." (H. A. de C.)

GUARATINGUETA, a city of Brazil In the eastern part of the state of Sao

Paulo, 124 m. N.E. of the city of Sao Paulo. Pop. (1890) of the

municipality, which includes a large rural district and the villages of

Apparecida and Roseira, 30,690. The city, which was founded in 1651,

stands on a fertile plain 3 m. from the Parahyba river, and is the

commercial centre of one of the oldest agricultural districts of the

state. The district produces large quantities of coffee, and some sugar,

Indian corn and beans. Cattle and pigs are raised. The city dwellings

are for the most part constructed of rough wooden frames covered with

mud, called _taipa_ by the natives, and roofed with curved tiles. The

Sao Paulo branch of the Brazilian Central railway passes through the

city, by which it is connected with Rio de Janeiro on one side and Sao

Paulo and Santos on the other.

GUARDA, an episcopal city and the capital of an administrative district

bearing the same name, and formerly in the province of Beira, Portugal;

on the Guarda-Abrantes and Lisbon-Villar Formoso railways. Pop. (1900)

6124. Guarda is situated 3370 ft. above sea-level, at the north-eastern

extremity of the Serra da Estrella, overlooking the fertile valley of

the river Coa. It is surrounded by ancient walls, and contains a ruined

castle, a fine 16th-century cathedral and a sanatorium for consumptives.

Its industries comprise the manufacture of coarse cloth and the sale of

grain, wine and live stock. In 1199 Guarda was founded, on the site of

the Roman Lencia Oppidana, by Sancho I. of Portugal, who intended it, as

its name implies, to be a "guard" against Moorish invasion. The

administrative district of Guarda coincides with north-eastern Beira;

pop. (1900), 261,630; area, 1065 sq. m.

GUARDI, FRANCESCO (1712-1793), Venetian painter, was a pupil of

Canaletto, and followed his style so closely that his pictures are very

frequently attributed to his more celebrated master. Nevertheless, the

diversity, when once perceived, is sufficiently marked--Canaletto being

more firm, solid, distinct, well-grounded, and on the whole the higher

master, while Guardi is noticeable for spirited touch, sparkling colour

and picturesquely sketched figures--in these respects being fully equal

to Canaletto. Guardi sometimes coloured Canaletto's designs. He had

extraordinary facility, three or four days being enough for producing an

entire work. The number of his performances is large in proportion to

this facility and to the love of gain which characterized him. Many of

his works are to be found in England and seven in the Louvre.

GUARDIAN, one who guards or defends another, a protector. The O. Fr.

_guarden_, _garden_, mod. _gardien_, from _guarder_, _garder_, is of

Teutonic origin, from the base _war-_, to protect, cf. O.H. Ger.

_warten_, and Eng. "ward"; thus "guardian" and "warden" are

etymologically identical, as are "guard" and "ward"; cf. the use of the

correlatives "guardian" and "ward," i.e. a minor, or person incapable of

managing his affairs, under the protection or in the custody of a

guardian. For the position of guardians of the poor see POOR LAW, and

for the legal relations between a guardian and his ward see INFANT,

MARRIAGE and ROMAN LAW.

GUARDS, AND HOUSEHOLD TROOPS. The word _guard_ is an adaptation of the

Fr. _guarde_, mod. _garde_, O. Ger. _ward_; see GUARDIAN. The practice

of maintaining bodyguards is of great antiquity, and may indeed be

considered the beginning of organized armies. Thus there is often no

clear distinction between the inner ring of personal defenders and the

select corps of trained combatants who are at the chief's entire

disposal. Famous examples of corps that fell under one or both these

headings are the "Immortals" of Xerxes, the Mamelukes, Janissaries, the

_Huscarles_ of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and the Russian Strelitz

(_Stryeltsi_). In modern times the distinction of function is better

marked, and the fighting men who are more intimately connected with the

sovereign than the bulk of the army can be classified as to duties into

"Household Troops," who are in a sense personal retainers, and

"Guards," who are a _corps d'elite_ of combatants. But the dividing line

is not so clear as to any given body of troops. Thus the British

Household Cavalry is part of the combatant army as well as the

sovereign's escort.

The oldest of the household or bodyguard corps in the United Kingdom is

the King's Bodyguard of the _Yeomen of the Guard_ (q.v.), formed at his

accession by Henry VII. The "nearest guard," the personal escort of the

sovereign, is the "King's Bodyguard of the Honourable Corps of

_Gentlemen-at-Arms_," created by Henry VIII. at his accession in 1509.

Formed possibly on the pattern of the "Pensionnaires" of the French

kings--retainers of noble birth who were the predecessors of the _Maison

du Roi_ (see below)--the new corps was originally called "the

Pensioners." The importance of such guards regiments in the general

development of organized armies is illustrated by a declaration of the

House of Commons, made in 1674, that the militia, the pensioners and the

Yeomen of the Guard were the only lawful armed forces in the realm. But

with the rise of the professional soldier and the corresponding disuse

of arms by the nobles and gentry, the Gentlemen-at-Arms (a title which

came into use in James II.'s time, though it did not become that of the

corps until William IV.'s) retaining their noble character, became less

and less military. Burke attempted without success in 1782 to restrict

membership to officers of the army and navy, but the necessity of giving

the corps an effective military character became obvious when, on the

occasion of a threatened Chartist riot, it was called upon to do duty as

an armed body at St James's Palace. The corps was reconstituted on a

purely military basis in 1862, and from that date only military officers

of the regular services who have received a war decoration are eligible

for appointment. The office of captain, however, is political, the

holder (who is always a peer) vacating it on the resignation of the

government of which he is a member. The corps consists at present of

captain, lieutenant, standard bearer, clerk of the cheque (adjutant),

sub-officer and 39 gentlemen-at-arms. The uniform consists of a scarlet

swallow-tailed coat and blue overalls, with gold epaulettes, brass

dragoon helmet with drooping white plume and brass box-spurs, these last

contrasting rather forcibly with the partizan, an essentially infantry

weapon, that they carry.

_The Royal Company of Archers._--The king's bodyguard for Scotland was

constituted in its present form in the year 1670, by an act of the

privy council of Scotland. An earlier origin has been claimed for the

company, some connecting it with a supposed archer guard of the kings

of Scotland. In the above-mentioned year, 1676, the minutes of the

Royal Company begin by stating, that owing to "the noble and usefull

recreation of archery being for many years much neglected, several

noblemen and gentlemen did associate themselves in a company for

encouragement thereof ... and did apply to the privy council for their

approbation ... which was granted." For about twenty years at the end

of the 17th century, perhaps owing to the adhesion of the majority to

the Stuart cause, its existence seems to have been suspended. But in

1703 a new captain-general, Sir George Mackenzie, Viscount Tarbat,

afterwards earl of Cromarty (1630-1714), was elected, and he procured

for the company a new charter from Queen Anne. The rights and

privileges renewed or conferred by this charter were to be held of the

crown for the _reddendo_ of a pair of barbed arrows. This _reddendo_

was paid to George IV. at Holyrood in 1822, to Queen Victoria in 1842

and to King Edward VII. in 1903. The history of the Royal Company

since 1703 has been one of great prosperity. Large parades were

frequently held, and many distinguished men marched in the ranks.

Several of the leading insurgents in 1745 were members, but the

company was not at that time suspended in any way.

In 1822 when King George IV. visited Scotland, it was thought

appropriate that the Royal Company should act as his majesty's

bodyguard during his stay, especially as there was a tradition of a

former archer bodyguard. They therefore performed the duties usually

assigned to the gentlemen-at-arms. When Queen Victoria visited the

Scottish capital in 1842, the Royal Company again did duty; the last

time they were called out in her reign in their capacity of royal

bodyguard was in 1860 on the occasion of the great volunteer review in

the Queen's Park, Edinburgh. They acted in the same capacity when King

Edward VII. reviewed the Scottish Volunteers there on the 18th of

September 1905.

King George IV. authorized the company to take, in addition to their

former name, that of "The King's Body Guard for Scotland," and

presented to the captain-general a gold stick, thus constituting the

company part of the royal household. In virtue of this stick the

captain-general of the Royal Company takes his place at a coronation

or similar pageant immediately behind the gold stick of England. The

lieutenants-general of the company have silver sticks; and the

council, which is the executive body of the company, possess seven

ebony ones. George IV. further appointed a full dress uniform to be

worn by members of the company at court, when not on duty as guards,

in which latter case the ordinary field dress is used. The court dress

is green with green velvet facings, gold epaulettes and lace, crimson

silk sash, and cocked hat with green plume. The officers wear a gold

sash in place of a crimson one, and an _aiguillette_ on the left

shoulder. All ranks wear swords. The field dress at present consists

of a dark-green tunic, shoulder-wings and gauntleted cuffs and

trousers trimmed with black and crimson; a bow-case worn as a sash, of

the same colour as the coat, black waistbelt with sword, and Balmoral

bonnet with thistle ornament and eagle's feather. The officers of the

company are the captain-general, 4 captains, 4 lieutenants, 4 ensigns,

12 brigadiers and adjutant.

Corps of the gentlemen-at-arms or yeoman type do not of course count as

combatant troops--if for no other reason at least because they are armed

with the weapons of bygone times. Colonel Clifford Walton states in his

_History of the British Standing Army_ that neither the Yeomen of the

Guard nor the Pensioners were ever subject to martial law. The British

guards and household troops that are armed, trained and organized as

part of the army are the _Household Cavalry_ and the _Foot Guards_.

The Household Cavalry consists at the present day of three regiments,

and has its origin, as have certain of the Foot guard regiments, in the

ashes of the "New Model" army disbanded at the restoration of Charles

II. in 1660. In that year the "1st or His Majesty's Own Troop of Guards"

formed during the king's exile of his cavalier followers, was taken on

the strength of the army. The 2nd troop was formerly in the Spanish

service as the "Duke of York's Guards," and was also a cavalier unit. In

1670, on Monk's death, the original 3rd troop (Monk's Life Guards,

renamed in 1660 the "Lord General's Troop of Guards") became the 2nd

(the queen's) troop, and the duke of York's troop the 3rd. In 1685 the

1st and 2nd troops were styled Life Guards of Horse, and two years later

the blue-uniformed "Royal Regiment of Horse," a New Model regiment that

had been disbanded and at once re-raised in 1660, was made a household

cavalry corps. Later under the colonelcy of the earl of Oxford it was

popularly called "The Oxford Blues." There were also from time to time

other troops (e.g. Scots troops 1700-1746) that have now disappeared. In

1746 the 2nd troop was disbanded, but it was revived in 1788, when the

two senior corps were given their present title of 1st and 2nd Life

Guards. From 1750 to 1819 the Blues bore the name of "Royal Horse Guards

Blue," which in 1819 was changed to "Royal Horse Guards (The Blues)."

The general distinction between the uniforms of the red Life Guard and

the blue Horse Guard still exists. The 1st and the 2nd regiments of Life

Guards wear scarlet tunics with blue collars and cuffs, and the Royal

Horse Guards blue tunics with scarlet collars and cuffs. All three wear

steel cuirasses on state occasions and on guard duty. The head-dress is

a steel helmet with drooping horse-hair plume (white for Life Guards,

red for Horse Guards). In full dress white buckskin pantaloons and long

knee boots are worn. Amongst the peculiarities of these _corps d'elite_

is the survival of the old custom of calling non-commissioned officers

"corporal of horse" instead of sergeant, and corporal-major instead of

sergeant-major, the wearing by trumpeters and bandsmen in full dress of

a black velvet cap, a richly laced coat with a full skirt extending to

the wearer's knees and long white gaiters. There is little distinction

between the two Life Guards regiments' uniforms, the most obvious point

being that the cord running through the white leather pouch belt is red

for the 1st and blue for the 2nd.

The Foot Guards comprise the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards,

the Scots Guards and the Irish Guards, each (except the last) of three

battalions. The Grenadiers, originally the First Foot Guards, represent

a royalist infantry regiment which served with the exiled princes in the

Spanish army and returned at the Restoration in 1660. The Coldstream

Guards are a New Model regiment, and were originally called the Lord

General's (Monk's) regiment of Foot Guards. Their popular title, which

became their official designation in 1670, is derived from the fact that

the army with which Monk restored the monarchy crossed the Tweed into

England at the village of Coldstream, and that his troops (which were

afterwards, except the two units of horse and foot of which Monk himself

was colonel, disbanded) were called the Coldstreamers. The two

battalions of Scots Foot Guards, which regiment was separately raised

and maintained in Scotland after the Restoration, marched to London in

1686 and 1688 and were brought on to the English Establishment in 1707.

In George III.'s reign they were known as the Third Guards, and from

1831 to 1877 (when the present title was adopted) as the Scots Fusilier

Guards.

The Irish Guards (one battalion) were formed in 1902, after the South

African War, as a mark of Queen Victoria's appreciation of the services

rendered by the various Irish regiments of the line.[1] The dress of the

Foot Guards is generally similar in all four regiments, scarlet tunic

with blue collars, cuffs and shoulder-straps, blue trousers and high,

rounded bearskin cap. The regimental distinctions most easily noticed

are these. The Grenadiers wear a small white plume in the bearskin, the

Coldstreams a similar red one, the Scots none, the Irish a blue-green

one. The buttons on the tunic are spaced evenly for the Grenadiers, by

twos for the Coldstreams, by threes for the Scots and by fours for the

Irish. The band of the modern cap is red for the Grenadiers, white for

the Coldstreams, "diced" red and white (chequers) for the Scots and

green for the Irish. Former privileges of foot guard regiments, such as

higher brevet rank in the army for their regimental officers, are now

abolished, but Guards are still subject exclusively to the command of

their own officers, and the officers of the Foot Guards, like those of

the Household Cavalry, have special duties at court. Neither the cavalry

nor the infantry guards serve abroad in peace time as a rule, but in

1907 a battalion of the Guards, which it was at that time proposed to

disband, was sent to Egypt. "Guards' Brigades" served in the Napoleonic

Wars, in the Crimea, in Egypt at various times from 1887 to 1898 and in

South Africa 1899-1902. The last employment of the Household Cavalry as

a brigade in war was at Waterloo, but composite regiments made up from

officers and men of the Life Guards and Blues were employed in Egypt and

in S. Africa.

The sovereigns of France had guards in their service in Merovingian

times, and their household forces appear from time to time in the

history of medieval wars. Louis XI. was, however, the first to

regularize their somewhat loose organization, and he did so to such

good purpose that Francis I. had no less than 8000 guardsmen

organized, subdivided and permanently under arms. The senior unit of

the _Gardes du Corps_ was the famous company of Scottish archers

(_Compagnie ecossaise de la Garde du Corps du Roi_), which was

originally formed (1418) from the Scottish contingents that assisted

the French in the Hundred Years' War. Scott's _Quentin Durward_ gives

a picture of life in the corps as it was under Louis XI. In the

following century, however, its regimental history becomes somewhat

confused. Two French companies were added by Louis XI. and Francis I.

and the _Gardes du Corps_ came to consist exclusively of cavalry.

About 1634 nearly all the Scots then serving went into the "regiment

d'Hebron" and thence later into the British regular army (see HEPBURN,

SIR JOHN). Thereafter, though the titles, distinctions and privileges

of the original Archer Guard were continued, it was recruited from

native Frenchmen, preference being (at any rate at first) given to

those of Scottish descent. At its disbandment in 1791 along with the

rest of the _Gardes du Corps_, it contained few, if any, native Scots.

There was also, for a short time (1643-1660), an infantry regiment of

_Gardes ecossaises_.

In 1671 the title of _Maison Militaire du Roi_ was applied to that

portion of the household that was distinctively military. It came to

consist of 4 companies of the _Gardes du Corps_, 2 companies of

_Mousquetaires_ (cavalry) (formed 1622 and 1660), 1 company of

_Chevaux legers_ (1570), 1 of _Gendarmes de la Maison Rouge_, and 1 of

_Grenadiers a Cheval_ (1676), with 1 company of _Gardes de la Porte_

and one called the _Cent-Suisses_, the last two being semi-military.

This large establishment, which did not include all the guard

regiments, was considerably reduced by the Count of St Germain's

reforms in 1775, all except the _Gardes du Corps_ and the

_Cent-Suisses_ being disbanded. The whole of the _Maison du Roi_, with

the exception of the semi-military bodies referred to, was cavalry.

The _Gardes francaises_, formed in 1563, did not form part of the

_Maison_. They were an infantry regiment, as were the famous _Gardes

suisses_, originally a Swiss mercenary regiment in the Wars of

Religion, which was, for good conduct at the combat of Arques,

incorporated in the permanent establishment by Henry IV. in 1589 and

in the guards in 1615. At the Revolution, contrary to expectation, the

French Guards sided openly with the Constitutional movement and were

disbanded. The Swiss Guards, however, being foreigners, and therefore

unaffected by civil troubles, retained their exact discipline and

devotion to the court to the day on which they were sacrificed by

their master to the bullets of the Marseillais and the pikes of the

mob (August 10, 1792). Their tragic fate is commemorated by the

well-known monument called the "Lion of Lucerne," the work of

Thorvaldsen, erected near Lucerne in 1821. The "Constitutional,"

"Revolutionary" and other guards that were created after the abolition

of the _Maison_ and the slaughter of the Swiss are unimportant, but

through the "Directory Guards" they form a nominal link between the

household troops of the monarchy and the corps which is perhaps the

most famous "Guard" in history. The Imperial Guard of Napoleon had its

beginnings in an escort squadron called the Corps of Guides, which

accompanied him in the Italian campaign of 1796-1797 and in Egypt. On

becoming First Consul in 1799 he built up out of this and of the guard

of the Directory a small corps of horse and foot, called the Consular

Guard, and this, which was more of a fighting unit than a personal

bodyguard, took part in the battle of Marengo. The Imperial Guard,

into which it was converted on the establishment of the Empire, was at

first of about the strength of a division. As such it took part in the

Austerlitz and Jena campaigns, but after the conquest of Prussia

Napoleon augmented it, and divided it into the "Old Guard" and the

"Young Guard." Subsequently the "Middle Guard" was created, and by

successive augmentations the corps of the guard had grown to be 57,000

strong in 1811-1812 and 81,000 in 1813. It preserved its general

character as a _corps d'elite_ of veterans to the last, but from about

1813 the "Young Guard" was recruited directly from the best of the

annual conscript contingent. The officers held a higher rank in the

army than their regimental rank in the Guards. At the first

Restoration an attempt was made to revive the _Maison du Roi_, but in

the constitutional regime of the second Restoration this semi-medieval

form of bodyguard was given up and replaced by the _Garde Royale_, a

selected fighting corps. This took part in the short war with Spain

and a portion of it fought in Algeria, but it was disbanded at the

July Revolution. Louis Philippe had no real guard troops, but the

memories of the Imperial Guard were revived by Napoleon III., who

formed a large guard corps in 1853-1854. This, however, was open to an

even greater degree than Napoleon I.'s guard to the objection that it

took away the best soldiers from the line. Since the fall of the

Empire in 1870 there have been no guard troops in France. The duty of

watching over the safety of the president is taken in the ordinary

roster of duty by the troops stationed in the capital. The "Republican

Guard" is the Paris gendarmerie, recruited from old soldiers and armed

and trained as a military body.

In _Austria-Hungary_ there are only small bodies of household troops

(Archer Body Guard, Trabant Guard, Hungarian Crown Guards, &c.)

analogous to the British Gentlemen at Arms or Yeomen of the Guard.

Similar forces, the "Noble Guard" and the "Swiss Guard," are

maintained in the Vatican. The court troops of Spain are called

"halberdiers" and armed with the halbert.

In _Russia_ the Guard is organized as an army corps. It possesses

special privileges, particularly as regards officers' advancement.

In _Germany_ the distinction between armed retainers and "Guards" is

well marked. The army is for practical purposes a unit under imperial

control, while household troops ("castle-guards" as they are usually

called) belong individually to the various sovereigns within the

empire. The "Guards," as a combatant force in the army are those of

the king of _Prussia_ and constitute a strong army corps. This has

grown gradually from a bodyguard of archers, and, as in Great Britain,

the functions of the heavy cavalry regiments of the Guard preserve to

some extent the name and character of a body guard (_Gardes du

Corps_). The senior foot guard regiment is also personally connected

with the royal family. The conversion of a palace-guard to a combatant

force is due chiefly to Frederick William I., to whom drill was a

ruling passion, and who substituted effective regiments for the

ornamental "Trabant Guards" of his father. A further move was made by

Frederick the Great in substituting for Frederick William's expensive

"giant" regiment of guards a larger number of ordinary soldiers, whom

he subjected to the same rigorous training and made a _corps d'elite_.

Frederick the Great also formed the Body Guard alluded to above.

Nevertheless in 1806 the Guard still consisted only of two cavalry

regiments and four infantry regiments, and it was the example of

Napoleon's imperial guard which converted this force into a corps of

all arms. In 1813 its strength was that of a weak division, but in

1860 by slight but frequent augmentations it had come to consist of an

army corps, complete with all auxiliary services. A few guard

regiments belonging to the minor sovereigns are counted in the line

of the German army. In war the Guard is employed as a unit, like other

army corps. It is recruited by the assignment of selected young men of

each annual contingent, and is thus free from the reproach of the

French Imperial Guard, which took the best-trained soldiers from the

regiments of the line.