WILLIAM AND MABY.

85

The governor was a feeble man whom Gastanaga had appointed,and whom William had recently advised the Elector of Bavariato remove. The spirit of the garrison gave way. The townsurrendered on the eighth day of the siege, the citadel aboutthree weeks later.*

The history of the fall of Namur in 1692 bears a close^re-semblance to the history of the fall of Mons in 1691. Both in1691 and in 1692, Lewis, the sole and absolute master oftheresources of his kingdom, was able to open the campaign, be-fore William, the captain of a coalition, had brought togetherhis dispersed forces. In both years the advantage of havingthe first move decided the event of the game. At Namur, as atMons, Lewis, assisted by Vauban, conducted the siege:Luxemburg covered it: William vainly tried to raise it, and,with deep mortification, assisted as a spectator at the victory ofhis enemy.

In one respect however the fate of the two fortresses wasvery different. Mons was delivered up by its own inhabitants.Namur might perhaps have been saved if the garrison had beenas zealous and determined as the population. Strange to say,in this place, so long subject to a foreign rule, there was founda patriotism resembling that of the little Greek commonwealths.There is no reason to believe that the burghers cared about thebalance of power, or had any preference for Janies or for Wil-liam, for the Most Christian King or for the Most CatholicKing. But every citizen considered his oivn honour as boundup with the honour of the maiden fortress. It is true that theFrench did not abuse their victory. No outrage was com-

* Monthly Mercuries of June and July 1692; London Gazettes of June;Gazette de Paris; M&noires do Saint Simon; Journal de Dangeau; William

to Heinsius, June -fa. June Vernon’s Letters to Colt, printed in

Tindal’s History; Racine’s Narrative, and Letters to Boileau of June 15.and 24.

CHAP

XIX.

16 ‘J 2 .