"By that deed, dated at London, February 5, 31 Hen. VI., John Frensh, eldest son of John Frensh, late citizen and goldsmith of London, confirmed to Joan Frensh, widow, his mother--'Totum ten' sive hospicium cum suis pertin' vocat' Savagesynne, alias vocat' le Belle on the Hope;' all that tenement or inn with its appurtenances, called Savage's Inn, otherwise called the Bell on the Hoop, in the parish of St. Bridget in Fleet Street, London, to have and to hold the same for term of her life, without impeachment of waste. The lease to Isabella Savage must therefore have been anterior in date; and the sign in the olden day was the Bell. 'On the Hoop' implied the ivy-bush, fashioned, as was the custom, as a garland."--P. 137. ZEUS. _Arms of Geneva_ (Vol. viii., p. 563.).--Berry's _Encyclopædia_ and Robson's _British Herald_ give the following: "Per pale or and gules, on the dexter side a demi-imperial eagle crowned, or, divided palewise and fixed to the impaled line; on the sinister side a key in pale argent; the wards in chief, and turned to the sinister; the shield surmounted with a marquis's coronet." Boyer, in his _Theatre of Honour_, gives-- "Party per pale argent and gules, in the first a demi-eagle displayed sable, cut by the line of partition and crowned, beaked, and membered of the second. "In the second a key in pale argent, the wards sinister." BROCTUNA. Bury, Lancashire. "_Arabian Nights' Entertainments_" (Vol. viii., p. 147.).--There is a much stranger omission in these tales than any MR. ROBSON has mentioned. From one end of the work to the other (in Galland's version at least) the name of opium is never to be found; and although narcotics are frequently spoken of, it is always in the form of powder they are administered, which shows that that substance cannot be intended; yet opium is, unlike tobacco or coffee, a genuine Eastern product, and has been known from the earliest period in those regions. J. S. WARDEN. _Richard I._ (Vol. viii., p. 72.).--I presume that the Richard I. of the "Tablet" is the "Richard, King of England," who figures in the Roman Calendar on the 7th February, but who, if he ever existed, was not even monarch of any of the petty kingdoms of the Heptarchy, much less of all England. However, not to go farther with a subject which might lead to polemical controversy, surely MR. LUCAS is aware that a new series of kings began to be reckoned from the Conquest, and that three Edwards, who had much more right to be styled kings of England than Richard could have possibly had, are not counted in the number of kings of that name; the reason was, I believe, that these princes, although the paramount rulers of the country, styled themselves much more frequently Kings of the West Saxons than Kings of England. J. S. WARDEN. {45}