One of the surprising aspects of the 1352 Statute of Treasons is the total absence of a discussion on corporeal punishment for treason. Although king and commons are concerned about the division of escheats and forfeitures, the fate of the traitor is cloaked in silence, which suggests a common agreement on the propriety of the punishment. On the basis of this, it is difficult to disagree with Gillingham's observation about the introduction of harsher punishments for aristocratic traitors. Edward I's attitude towards men he considered to be traitors was radically different from previous reigns (although a precedent was set by Henry III's treatment of the anonymous knight and William de Marisco in 1238 and 1242 respectively), and his array of punishments for them was generally accepted by English sources as just and valid, mainly because the convicted traitors were Welsh or Scottish, or had conspired with the king's enemies of the time. Moreover, many of them had been ‘repeat offenders’, pushing the boundaries of the king's displeasure by persisting in their rebellion after Edward's initial judicial reticence. Men such as David ap Gruffydd, Simon Fraser or John of Atholl, after a first rebellion against him, had been accepted back into Edward's peace, which they subsequently spurned. William de Marisco and William Wallace had been outlawed, while in 1312 and 1326, Piers Gaveston and the Despensers could be executed for treason partly because they were perceived to have broken the terms of exile imposed upon them on an earlier occasion.