Having specified the sort of practices which the _Law of Honour_ allows, I shall take some brief notice of the duties which it exacts. The principal of these, and that upon which its tone and spirit are most peremptory, is the _resentment of injuries_. Now it must be observed, that the term _injury_, in the use of people of Fashion, is of a very wide and comprehensive signification. It not only means such an act of outrage as amounts to a manifest and palpable wrong, but extends to every dubious point of conduct, from which a Fashionable sophist could find scope to infer an injurious intention. Thus a sister seduced, and then abandoned, and a word or a look not satisfactorily explained, are all equally injuries; and constitute, in the spirit of this code, so many obligations to the most lively and implacable resentment. It may be, that the offended person is of a peaceable disposition, and would rather endure a moderate injury than revenge it; or he may have too much respect for the laws of the parent state, to require or accept redress in any other than the legal way; or he may know, that the offending party is a man disposed to seek a quarrel, and that he desires nothing so much as to provoke the innocent person, whom he has purposely insulted, to claim satisfaction; or, lastly, it may be, that the supposed injury is founded wholly on mistake, and that the reputed aggressor will not believe or own himself to have offended, and will therefore make no atonement. In all these cases, personal resentment might as well be waved; but this the Law of Honour positively forbids: and he who should conscientiously decline to pursue a personal quarrel, upon these, or even higher motives, might be a better father, a better husband, a better subject, and a better Christian, for so doing; but he would certainly be a worse man of honour.