Although we know where Shareshull lived and where he died, what he wore and what he ate and drank, whom he married, what provisions he made for his children, who were his closest friends, what were his political affiliations, and how he spent the major part of his waking hours, and although through his precise words on many legal and other subjects, cited in year-book reports or used in his speeches in parliament, and through the details of his practical activities, we learn something of the character of his thinking, still we do not really know what manner of person he was. His genial, informal language to his colleagues in court, especially to his old associate Hillary, and the tone of the one private letter that has been identified—the letter to abbot Monyton of Glastonbury—tempt one to believe that Shareshull had a capacity for friendly, human relations. It is extraordinarily difficult to decide whether his cynical utterances in court on religion and his willingness to face the perils of excommunication portray his views more accurately than do the pious phrases in the above letter, or his gifts to ecclesiastical foundations. I feel sure that the description of him as ‘morose’ by an eighteenth-century writer and the allegation that he had no sense of humour are due to a complete misinterpretation of the Ipswich incident and that they are wide of the mark. But it is true that the great mass of material thus far found on Shareshull concerns his outward acts rather than his personal characteristics. Unfortunately outward acts do not necessarily reveal the inner man.

Some definite statements can be made, however, many of them negative. In spite of the accusations of recent Staffordshire historians, in certain instances possibly influenced by an unconscious class preiudice, no proof of Shareshull's alleged corruption has thus far been found. Even though a modern interpretation of their oath would forbid judges to take fees for their professional services, it is not fair to condemn Shareshull for accepting the fourteenth-century convention that justified arrangements like those entered into with the Knights Hospitallers or others.