have frequently known several of the Female Spectators and Auditors to long for some of it: and once that well known Natural, _Jack Adams_ of _Clarkenwel_, seeing him with Bread and Butter on the Stage, and knowing him, cryed out, Cuz, Cuz, give me some, give me some; to the great pleasure of the Audience. And so Naturally did he Act the Smith's part, that being at a Fair in a Countrey Town, and that Farce being presented, the only Master Smith of the Town came to him, saying, well, although your Father speaks so ill of you, yet when the Fair is done, if you will come and work with me, I will give you twelve pence a week more than I give any other Journey-Man. Thus was he taken for a Smith bred, that was indeed as much of any Trade. ... Thus were these Compositions liked and approved by all, and they were the fittest for the Actors to represent, there being little Cost in Cloaths, which often were in great danger to be seized by the then Souldiers, who, as the Poet sayes, _Enter the Red Coat, Exit Hat and Cloak_, was very true, not only in the Audience, but the Actors too, were commonly, not only strip'd, but many times imprisoned, till they paid such Ransom as the Souldiers would impose upon them; so that it was hazardous to Act any thing that required any good Cloaths, instead of which painted Cloath many times served the turn to represent Rich Habits ... and this painting puts me in mind of a piece I once saw in a Country Inn, where was, with the best skill of the Workman represented King _Pharaoh_ with _Moses_ and _Aaron_, and some others, to explain which figures, was added this piece of Poetry Here _Pharaoh_ with his Goggle Eyes does stare on The High Priest _Moses_, with the Prophet _Aaron_. Why, what a Rascal Was he that would not let the People go to eat the Phascal. The Painting was in every wayes as defective and lame as the Poetry, for I believe he who pictured King _Pharaoh_, had never seen a King in his life, for all the Majesty he was represented with was goggle Eyes, that his Picture might be answerable to the Verse." We see by the above extract that much was not expected in a Droll; and, verily, few could have been disappointed. To modern taste the humour of the majority is too coarse; and, therefore, I have been obliged to take, as an exemplar, the most innocent of its class. [Footnote 123: It is a curious fact that both Nares and Halliwell, in their glossaries, describe Drolls as being _puppet_ shows, when, as is shown, they were acted by living people.] [Footnote 124: This theatre was in Clerkenwell, at the corner of what is now Woodbridge Street, and here acted (in October 1617, if not again) Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College. It is frequently mentioned in contemporary books, notably by Prynne in his _Histrio Martix_, and by Pepys in his Diary, 4th August 1660, and 23d March and 26th May 1662.] The Humour of Bumpkin.