Sir Louis was in some respects the most remarkable man that Lower Canada has produced. Though he identified himself with many important measures of Reform, the temper of his mind, more especially during his latter years, was eminently aristocratic and Conservative. His disposition was not one that could properly be described as genial. He was not a perfect tactician, and had not the faculty of making himself "all things to all men." Coriolanus himself had not a more supreme contempt for "the insinuating nod" whereby the elector is wheedled out of his vote. His demeanour was generally somewhat cold and repellent, and though he was thoroughly honourable, and respected by all who knew him, he was not a man of many warm personal friends. In the sketch of Robert Baldwin's life we have given Sir John Kaye's estimate of that gentleman's character and aspirations, as reflected in the letters and papers of Lord Metcalfe. The estimate is so wide of the mark that our readers will probably be disposed to place little reliance upon Sir John's capability for gauging the public men of Canada. In the case of the subject of the present sketch, however, Lord Metcalfe's biographer has contrived to stumble upon a much more accurate judgment. Speaking of Mr. Lafontaine, during his tenure of office as Attorney-General for Canada East, in 1843, he tells us that "all his better qualities were natural to him; his worse were the growth of circumstances. Cradled, as he and his people had been, in wrong, smarting for long years under the oppressive exclusiveness of the dominant race, he had become mistrustful and suspicious; and the doubts which were continually floating in his mind had naturally engendered indecision and infirmity of purpose. But he had many fine characteristics which no evil circumstances could impair. He was a just and an honourable man. His motives were above all suspicion. Warmly attached to his country, earnestly seeking the happiness of his people, he occupied a high position by the force rather of his moral than of his intellectual qualities. He was trusted and respected rather than admired." If we omit the reference to indecision and infirmity of purpose, we may accept the foregoing as being, so far as it goes, a not inaccurate estimate of the character of Mr. Lafontaine. The excepted reference, however, shows how little the writer could really have known of the subject of his remarks. So far from being undecided or infirm of purpose, Mr. Lafontaine was almost domineering and tyrannical in his firmness. He was very reluctant to receive discipline, and was generally disposed to prefer his own judgment to that of any one else. It will be news, indeed, to such of his colleagues as still survive, to learn that Sir Louis Lafontaine was infirm of purpose. Sir Francis Hincks, who is able to speak with high authority on the subject, declares in one of his political pamphlets that he never met a man less open to such an imputation. Other equally trustworthy authorities have borne similar testimony, and indeed the whole course of his political life furnishes a standing refutation to the charge. Sir Louis was intellectually far above most of those with whom he acted, and he was endowed by nature with an imperious will. He brooked contradiction, or even moderate remonstrance, with an ill grace. Had he been of a more conciliating temper he would doubtless have been vastly more popular. His sincerity and uprightness have never, so far as we are aware, been called in question.