imself, and
married the lady of his choice, with whom he has, unknown to us, been
violently in love during these adventures, and that they lived happily
together for many years. I hope this was so,--although the chronicle
does not allow one to affirm it,--it being but a proper conclusion to
such a romance as I have plucked out of our history.

And so I have traced the tradition of the Cave to the end. What I have
been able to certify furnishes the means of a shrewd estimate of the
average amount of truth which popular traditions generally contain.
There is always a fact at the bottom, lying under a superstructure of
fiction,--truth enough to make the pursuit worth following. Talbot did
not live in the Cave, but fled there occasionally for concealment. He
had no hawks with him, but bred them in his own mews on the Elk River.
The birds seen in after times were some of this stock, and not the
solitary pair they were supposed to be. I dare say an expert naturalist
would find many specimens of the same breed now in that region. But let
us not be too critical on the tradition, which has led us into a quest
through which I have been able to supply what I hope will be found to be
a pleasant insight into that little world of action and passion,--with
its people, its pursuits, and its gossips,--that, more than one hundred
and seventy years ago, inhabited the beautiful banks of St. Mary's
River, and wove the web of our early Maryland history.

POSTSCRIPT.

I have another link in the chain of Talbot's history, furnished me by a
friend in Virginia. It comes since I have completed my narrative, and
very accurately confirms the conjecture of Chalmers, quoted in the note
of "The Landholder's Assistant." "As for Colonel Talbot, he was conveyed
for trial to Virginia, from whence he made his escape, and, after being
retaken, and, _I believe_, tried and convicted, was finally pardoned by
King James II." This is an extract from the note. It is now ascertained
that Talbot was not taken to England for trial, as Lord Baltimore, in
his letter of the 6th of July, 1685, affirmed it was the King's pleasure
he should be; but that he was tried and convicted in Virginia on the 22d
of April, 1686, and, on the 26th of the same month, reprieved by order
of the King; after which we may presume he received a full pardon, and
perhaps was taken to England in obedience to the royal command, to await
it there. The conviction and reprieve are recorded in