"The state of Newstead at the time the poet succeeded to the estate is not generally known: '_the wicked lord_' had felled all the noble oaks, destroyed the finest herds of deer, and, in short, had denuded the estate of everything he could. The hirelings of the attorney did the rest: they stripped away all the furniture, and everything the law would permit them to remove. The buildings on the east side were unroofed; the old Xenodochium, and the grand refectory, were full of hay; and the entrance-hall and monks' parlour were stable for cattle. In the only habitable part of the building, a place then used as a sort of scullery, under the only roof that kept out wet of all this vast pile, the fifth Lord Byron breathed his last; and to this inheritance the poet succeeded." It is not necessary for me to refer to the lofty expression of the poet's feelings on such his inheritance, nor to the necessity of his parting from the estate, which appears now to be happily restored to its former splendour; but possessing some knowledge of a lamentable fact, that neither Mr. Pettigrew nor Mr. Ashpitel appears to be aware of, I feel inclined to soften the asperity of the reflections quoted; and palliate, although I may not justify, the apparently reckless proceedings of the eccentric fifth Lord, as he is called. In the years 1796 and 1797, after finishing my clerkship, I had a seat in the chambers of the late Jas. Hanson, Esq., an eminent conveyancer of Lincoln's Inn; and while with him, amongst other peers of the realm who came to consult Mr. Hanson regarding their property, we had this _eccentric_ fifth Lord Byron, who apparently came up to town for the purpose, and under the most painful and pitiable load of distress,--and I must confess that I felt for him exceedingly; but his case was past remedy, and, after some daily attendance, pouring forth his lamentations, he appears to have returned home to subside into the reckless operations reported of him. His case was this:--Upon the marriage of his son, he, as any other father would do, granted a settlement of his property, including the Newstead Abbey estate; but by some unaccountable inadvertence or negligence of the lawyers employed, the ultimate reversion of the fee-simple of the property, instead of being left, as it ought to have been, in the father as the owner of the estates, was limited to the heirs of the son. And upon his death, and failure of the issue of the marriage, the unfortunate father, _this eccentric lord_, found himself robbed of the fee-simple of his own inheritance, and left merely the naked tenant for life, without any legal power of raising money upon it, or even of cutting down a tree. It is so many years ago, that I now do not remember the detail of what passed on these consultations, but it would appear, that if the lawyers were aware of the effect of the final limitation, neither