generally thought that Elia had awakened in an unruly mood. Hazlitt
attended once or twice; but he was a rather silent guest, rising into
emphatic talk only when some political discussion (very rare) stimulated
him.

Mr. De Quincey appeared at only one of these dinners. The expression of
his face was intelligent, but cramped and somewhat peevish. He was self-
involved, and did not add to the cheerfulness of the meeting. I have
consulted this gentleman's three essays, of which Charles Lamb is
professedly the subject; but I cannot derive from them anything
illustrative of my friend Lamb's character. I have been mainly struck
therein by De Quincey's attacks on Hazlitt, to whom the essays had no
relation. I am aware that the two authors (Hazlitt and De Quincey) had a
quarrel in 1823, Hazlitt having claimed certain theories or reasonings
which the other had propounded as his own. In reply to Mr. De Quincey's
claims to have had a familiar acquaintance with Charles Lamb (in 1821 and
1823), I have to observe that during these years (when I was almost
continually with him) I never saw Mr. De Quincey at his house, and never
heard Lamb speak of him or refer to his writings on any occasion. His
visits to Lamb were surely very rare.

_John Clare_, a peasant from Northamptonshire, and a better poet than
Bloomfield, was one of the visitors. He was thoroughly rustic, dressed in
conspicuously country fashion, and was as simple as a daisy. His delight
at the wonders of London formed the staple of his talk. This was often
stimulated into extravagance by the facetious fictions of Reynolds. Poor
fellow, he died insane.

About this time Lamb determined to leave London; and in 1823 he moved into
Colebrook Cottage, Islington, a small, detached white house of six rooms.