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.