The unfortunate result of the King of Hungary’s campaign in Turkey, as well as the ransom of the prisoners, has been mentioned in the description of Plates XIV. and XIX. The present miniature represents the reception of the news at the French court. Sir James de Helly, who was one of the prisoners, had formerly served in Turkey under the sultan Amurat, so that he knew a little of the Turkish language, and was on that account selected by Bajazet to proceed to France on parole, in order to arrange the ransom of the other prisoners. Sir James arrived in Paris on the evening of Christmas-day, in the year 1396, and immediately waited on the king at the Hotel St. Pol, as represented in the miniature, in the same dress he had rode in, booted and spurred. Froissart tells us, that “when the intelligence brought by Sir James de Helly was made public, all who had lost husband, brother, father, or child, were in the utmost consternation, as may easily be imagined. The high nobility of France, such as the Duchess of Burgundy and the lady Margaret of Hainault, were greatly afflicted on account of their son and husband, the Count de Nevers, for he was greatly beloved by them. The Countess of Eu lamented her lord, the constable, as did the Countess de la Marche. The ladies of Coucy, Bar, and Sully, in like manner bewailed the melancholy situation of their lords. They were fortunate in having only their lords’ captivity to lament, and were somewhat comforted thereat. But the relatives and friends of those who had been massacred were inconsolable, and the grief of France lasted a long time.” For many highly interesting particulars, see Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii., pp. 629, 630, and 631. [Illustration: The Duke of Gloucester and Sir John Lackingay.] PLATE XXX. THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER AND SIR JOHN LACKINGAY. Froissart tells us that the Duke of Gloucester plotted the destruction of the king, his nephew; and, in his evidently implicit faith in the divine right of kings, appears much shocked at the enormity of the duke’s delinquency; nevertheless, in the so-called treasonable conversations which he makes him hold with his confidant, Sir John Lackingay, the duke states nothing but the reasonable causes of complaint which so glaringly existed. He says, “If the King of England had a good head, &c., &c., he would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, &c., &c.; but things are not so: we have an unwarlike king, who is indifferent to arms,” &c., &c. And again: “The king raises heavy taxes on our merchants, who are greatly discontented, squanders the money no one knows how, and thus the country is impoverished[16];” with much more, all of which was too true. But our chronicler relates also, with less authority, that the duke actually proposed to his nephew, the Earl of March, to depose the king, and, with the help of the discontented Londoners, seize upon the government.