of his garden.  He was the first up and the last to retire, and whatever had been his occupations during the day, never did he lie down without having scrupulously observed all the spiritual offices, readings or reciting of beads.  It was not, however, that his food gave him a superabundance of physical vigour, for the Trappists did not eat more frugally than he.  A soup, which he purposely spoiled by diluting it amply with hot water, a little meat and a crust of very dry bread composed his ordinary fare, and dessert, even on feast days, was absolutely banished from his table.  “For his ordinary drink,” says Brother Houssart, “he took only hot water slightly flavoured with wine; and every one knows that his Lordship never took either cordial or dainty wines, or any mixture of sweets of any sort whatever, whether to drink or to eat, except that in his last years I succeeded in making him take every evening after his broth, which was his whole supper, a piece of biscuit as large as one’s thumb, in a little wine, to aid him to sleep.  I may say without exaggeration that his whole life was one continual fast, for he took no breakfast, and every evening only a slight collation....  He used his whole substance in alms and pious works; and when he needed anything, such as clothes, linen, etc., he asked it from the seminary like the humblest of his ecclesiastics.  He was most modest in matters of dress, and I had great difficulty in preventing him from wearing his clothes when they were old, dirty and mended.  During twenty years he had but two winter cassocks, which he left behind him on his death, the one still quite good, the other all threadbare and mended.  To be brief, there was no one in the seminary poorer in dress....”  Mgr. de Laval set an example of the principal virtues which distinguish the saints; so he could not fail in that which our Lord incessantly recommends to His disciples, charity!  He no longer possessed anything of his own, since he had at the outset abandoned his patrimony to his brother, and since later on he had given to the seminary everything in his possession.  But charity makes one ingenious:  by depriving himself of what was strictly necessary, could he not yet come to the aid of his brothers in Jesus Christ?  “Never was prelate,” says his eulogist, M. de la Colombiere, “more hostile to grandeur and exaltation....  In scorning grandeur, he triumphed over himself by a poverty worthy of the anchorites of the first centuries, whose rules he faithfully observed to the end of his days.  Grace had so thoroughly absorbed in the heart of the prelate the place of the tendencies of our corrupt nature that he seemed to have been born with an aversion to riches, pleasures and honours....  If you have noticed his dress, his furniture and his table, you must be aware that he was a foe to pomp and splendour.  There is no village priest in France who is not better nourished, better clad and better lodged than was the Bishop of Quebec.  Far from having an equipage