HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



35 



VkJIed. General Clairfait was en- 

 tirely defeated, losing no less than 

 six thousand men, together with all 

 prospect of maintaining his ground 

 in that quarter. The result of this 

 defeat, which happened the 15th 

 of July, was the loss of Louvain. 

 It was not however yielded to. the 

 French with a desperate conflict, 

 wherein much blood was shed. 

 A stand was maide by the Aus- 

 trians in the neighbourhood ; but 

 they were put to the rout by the 

 French General Lefevre, and pur- 

 sued with great slaughter as far as 

 Tirlemont. 



The rapidity with which thfr 

 French carried all before them, 

 totally confounded the plans that 

 had been formed to resist them. 

 After it had been found that a de- 

 fensive system was the only one to 

 be adopted after so many disasters, 

 a line of defence had been project- 

 ed, wherein the principal places 

 tsteemed tenable were included. 

 The two extremities of the line 

 proposed were Antwerp and Na- 

 mur ; and it was expected that by 

 filling these places witll numerous 

 garrisons long and tedious sieges 

 inight be sustained, and, not im- 

 probably, weary out the patience 

 of the enemy, and prove in tlie is- 

 sue materially obstructive to his 

 general designs. But the unex- 

 pected celerity with which the 

 French pursued whatever they un- 

 dertook, totally frustrated this 

 plan : whcthcf- from not feeing pre- 

 viously put in a state of preparation 

 for angular defence, or that a want 

 of proper vigour Was impiJtablc to 

 the allies, the French experienced 

 little or no difficulty in compelling 

 •the almost immediate surrender of 

 every town they approached. 

 Doubtless, the disaffecuon of the 



inhabitants to the cause of the 

 combined powers, operated against 

 them; but as they were disarmed, 

 a resolute garrison might have kept 

 theirt in awe, as well as maintained 

 their post against the enemy. 



Both Antwerp and Namur were 

 famous in history for the sieges 

 they had sustained. Namur par- 

 ticularly had been successively be- 

 sieged by Louis XIV. of France, 

 and William III. of England, in 

 person, and neither of them redu- 

 ced it until after an obstinate re- 

 sistance : but both these cities were 

 now abandoned in a manner which, 

 by the severe criticisers of the con- 

 duct of the aUies, throughout tlris 

 campaign, was stigmatized as de- 

 noting feebleness of conduct, and 

 deiection of spirit. 



Ti-e troops at Namur were with- 

 drawn by General Beaulieu : they 

 were so apprehensive of being 

 made prisoners, that they took ad- 

 vantage of a dark night; and be- 

 fore the morning of the l/th of 

 July, had evacuated both the city 

 and the citadel; where,, on taking 

 possesion, the French found a nu- 

 merous artillery. 



The importance and extent of 

 Antwerp had rendered it a general 

 depot of all the principal store;; and 

 maga2!ines of the allied army. The 

 quantity of these was immense. 

 Eager to seize a prey of such value 

 and consequence, the French has- 

 tened to Antwerp the moment th;y 

 were able, and summoned it to sur- 

 render ; which it did accordingly 

 on the morning of the '23d of Jul) . 

 Ihe enemy was disappo.nted how- 

 ever in his expectations of booty ; 

 all that could be serviceable to him 

 having been previously destroyed, 

 it was computed at the time, that 

 the value thus lost amounted to 

 /) 2 nr.oift 



