On the other hand, the Charter contained no provision for compelling the barons in general to fulfil their part of its obligations, either towards their sub-tenants[1042] or towards the Crown, except what might be implied in the authority given to the twenty-five; while for securing the loyalty and good faith of the twenty-five themselves it contained no provision at all. If we look at the text of the Charter alone, we can but endorse the verdict of its foreign soldier-critics: England was exchanging one king for five-and-twenty. This defect in the treaty seems to have been noticed as soon as it was passed, and a remedy was sought in the appointment of another body of barons, thirty-eight in number, chosen from both parties,[1043] and including the Earl Marshal and the other chief adherents of the king; these, after swearing obedience to the twenty-five, took another oath which bound them to compel both the king and the twenty-five to deal justly with one another.[1044] This precaution may perhaps have been suggested by Langton and the other bishops when a significant incident had shown them that the promise of the insurgent barons was worth no more than that of the king. This incident rests upon the authority of a joint statement purporting to be issued, evidently by way of protest and warning and for the clearing of their own consciences, by ten eye-witnesses--the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, seven English bishops, and Pandulf. In a letter-patent addressed to “all Christian people,” these ten persons (if the document be genuine) recite how in their sight and hearing the barons had made to the king--seemingly before the Charter was sealed--a verbal promise that they would give him, for their observance of the agreement between him and themselves, any security which he might choose, except castles or hostages. “Afterwards” John called upon them to fulfil this promise by giving him in their turn a charter, whereby they should acknowledge themselves bound to him by oath and homage as his liegemen, and for the preservation of his rights and those of his heirs and the defence of his realm. “But,” say the witnesses, “this they would not do.”[1045] Such, it seems, was the earnest of the loyalty to their plighted word which England, as well as John, had to expect from the men who posed as the champions of justice and right.