1

A WORD FROM OUR WONDERFUL SPONSORS:

The Owl Education Institute is an established and unique company. Based in West London
we have been offering intensive tuition in the core subjects—English, Mathematics and
Science—for over 25 years. The company shamelessly promotes academic, traditional
teaching with an emphasis on examination success. We offer high level tutoring in small,
focused group with each teacher head-hunted and selected for his or her individual expertise
and brilliance. An excellent centre with an exceptional reputation, we are now proud sponsors
of Mr Bruff and look forward to working with him in the year ahead.

For more information, please visit http://www.owleducation.co.uk/

 DEDICATION:
This guide was written by Georgina Bottomley, part of the mrbruff.com team.
Georgina Bottomley is an English teacher from Dorset with 13 years of teaching experience.
She is a happily married mother of one. Georgina Bottomley would like to thank: Andrew
Bruff for his valuable time and expert advice when proofreading the final draft of this book
and Neil Bottomley for his ongoing support.

I would like to start this eBook by thanking those who have helped and supported along the
way:

• Sam Perkins, who designed the front cover of this eBook.

• Sunny Ratilal, who designed the original front cover which was adapted for this
edition.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
This guide is not endorsed by, or affiliated with, any exam boards. The writers are simply two
experienced English teachers who are using their skills and expertise to help students.

Quotations from AN INSEPCTOR CALLS AND OTHER PLAYS by J. B. Priestley (these

plays first published by William Heineman 1948-50, first published by Penguin Books 1969,
Penguin Classics 2000). 'An Inspector Calls' copyright 1947 by J. B. Priestley are reproduced
by permission of Penguin Books Ltd.
 Contents:

The Playwright - J.B. Priestley

Social and Historical Context – Important events in Priestley’s Life
Setting and Structure
Timeline of the play, how to read a play rather than a novel

Characters – Mr. Birling

Characters – Edna and Sheila
Characters – Gerald
Characters – Mrs. Birling
Characters – Eric
Characters – Eva Smith/Daisy Renton
Characters – Inspector Goole
Age – Old vs Young – who accepts responsibility and why
The Opening Stage Directions – an analysis
Act One – A Summary

Act Two – A Summary

Act Three – A Summary
The Inspector’s Final Speech – an analysis
The End of the Play - Unanswered Questions and FAQ
Key themes: Class, love, relationships, selfishness
Structure: Dramatic Irony, time, conflict and tension
Sample essay – How does Priestley reveal a message of social responsibility in the play?
Sample essay – How does Priestley present the characters of Mr. Birling and Sheila in ‘An
Inspector Calls’
Key quotes (who said them and what do they mean?)
Quick Quiz - Act One – The Answers

Quick Quiz – Act Two – The Answers

Quick Quiz – Act Three – The Answers
 The Playwright - J. B. Priestley

J. B. Priestley (John Boynton Priestley) was born in Bradford, Yorkshire in September 1894.
His parents were middle class and his surroundings were probably not too dissimilar to the
town of Brumley where the Birling family from the play live.

After his time at school Priestley (aged 16) briefly worked as a clerk in a wool office before
joining the British Army at the start of the First World War; he served on the Western Front
and took part in the Battle of Loos. After many near misses, in 1916 he was wounded during
the war, and some of his work reflects on this period of service.

In 1919, Priestley went to Cambridge University to study and then moved to London to be a
writer. Despite producing novels, essays and articles Priestley is now primarily known as a
playwright. Much of his writing includes his strong political beliefs and his hatred of lies and
hypocrisy. We see evidence of this as he explores the inequalities in society in An Inspector
Calls.

In 1942 Priestley helped to set up the Common Wealth Party, a new political party which
believed in public ownership of land and a stronger emphasis on democracy. As a socialist,
Priestley believed that we are all part of the same society and should therefore share any
wealth and benefits. He thought it was essential that we all contribute to society rather than
just take from it. In 1945 the Common Wealth Party joined with the Labour Party.

During the Second World War Priestley had a weekly slot on BBC Radio but eventually his
broadcasts were cancelled, probably due to his criticism of the government of the time.
Winston Churchill’s Conservative cabinet believed his messages to be too left wing. It is
possible that his broadcasts helped influence people to accept his ideas and, in turn,
contributed to the Labour Party’s win in the 1945 General Election. The character of
Inspector Goole in An Inspector Calls appears to be the socialist voice of Priestley.

Having lived through two of them, Priestley believed that wars should be avoided and the
only way this could happen would be by countries having greater respect for one another and
so Priestley was involved in the early movement for a United Nations.

Priestley studied the concept of time, including Ouspensky’s theory which suggests that when
we die, we re-start our lives if we have failed to learn from any mistakes made in that
lifetime. He also studied Dunne’s theory which again focuses on learning from your
mistakes. This theory proposes that we have all been given the ability to look forward in time
so that we can avoid errors before we make them (as well as learning from mistakes in our
past). The idea of learning from your mistakes is certainly a key idea in “An Inspector Calls.”
J. B. Priestley continued writing until a few years before his death in 1984.
 Social and Historical Context - Important events in Priestley’s Life

1894
Priestley is born.

1895
The Time Machine is written by H.G. Wells, a socialist who supported the Suffragettes and
believed (like Priestley) that hope for the future could come from education and learning
through history.

1903
The Women’s Social and Political Union is founded by Emmeline Pankhurst, designed to
help women be given the right to vote.

1904
There is a dramatic increase in the amount of people who are receiving charitable aid.
3000 London cabbies go on strike.

1905
500 striking workers are shot by Csar’s troops in Russia.

1908
2000 cotton workers go on strike in England.
200,000 take part in a Suffragette demonstration in London.

1912
The “unsinkable” Titanic sinks after hitting an iceberg. The year in which An Inspector Calls
is set.

1913
Emily Davison dies trying to stop the King’s horse in the Derby.

1914
Start of the First World War.
Priestley serves in France in the trenches.
Builders and miners go on strike.
1918
The First World War ends.
Women vote for the first time in the UK.

1926
The General Strike occurs as workers protest against unemployment and the treatment of
miners.

1928
The vote is given to all women over the age of 21.

1939
The Second World War and the Holocaust starts.

1942
The idea of the Welfare State is proposed.

1945
The Second World War ends.
Priestley writes An Inspector Calls.

Written in 1945 but set in 1912…

In 1912 when the play is set, the ruling classes saw no need for change; they were keen to
stay in power. The Birlings, a wealthy family, represent others of a similar status; they are
heavily criticised by Priestley in the play (via the role of the Inspector) as they initially take
no responsibility for their actions and the effect they have on others. An audience at the time
(from 1946 to the present day) would have been aware (through the use of dramatic irony)
that a family such as the Birlings would soon hear about the sinking of the Titanic then would
have to endure two world wars.

Priestley, having witnessed two world wars which were fought to save society, questions
what kind of society people were fighting to save. The very idea of “society,” suggests a
group working together and looking out for one another; taking social responsibility is vital.
Seeing characters before the wars may provide some hope to an audience of the time that had
been through a very difficult period. The attitude of the Birlings, the way they are so quick to
dismiss any involvement with the unpleasant nature of Eva’s suicide would, no doubt, speak
to an audience at the time who have lived through the result of such complacency and
ignorance. An audience in the late 1940s would still have been deprived of many of the
luxuries that the Birlings enjoy at the beginning of the play as rationing continued into the
1950s, so the wealthy Birlings can be seen as materialistic and superficial.

To summarise:

Priestley may well have set his play in 1912 because it started a time of great change. In the
period between the two dates, class and gender differences were not so pronounced and there
was hope for a better future if young people could be educated and take responsibility for
their actions and their treatment of others.
 The Setting – Brumley

An Inspector Calls is set in the fictitious city known as Brumley. We learn, through the
course of the play, that it has a police force with its own constable and a Lord Mayor (a
position which was once held by Mr. Birling.) The city is also due a visit from the Royal
family and Arthur Birling says he is hoping for a knighthood. Priestley’s own home town of
Bradford in Yorkshire is a similar industrial city which probably had many similar features to
Brumley, including some division of classes.

The existence of Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation suggests that there is a number of
women of low status who need help in the city. Eva Smith represents these women and others
who still need help in our current society.

Structure

The play takes place in one location - the dining room in the house of the Birling family.
This, arguably, allows the audience to maintain focus on the main issues and Priestley’s
message of social responsibility.

The characters are introduced in Act One. The Birling family are presented as wealthy and
oblivious to any of their wrongdoings; they seem to be happy and relatively at ease with one
another. The engagement of Sheila Birling to Gerald signals a look to the future. All seem
happy about this union as it would enable Sheila to maintain her current social status.

As the play progresses there are hints that all is not actually as calm as it seems but despite
these warnings the arrival of the Inspector is still quite a shock both to the Birling family and
to the audience. Just as the lighting turns to “brighter and harder,” so he is revealed to be
there to literally shed light on recent events which involve the Birling family and the suicide
of a girl named Eva Smith (also later known as Daisy Renton).

The events gather speed as the Inspector quickly works his way round each character,
questioning them on their relationship with and treatment of Eva. There are surprises revealed
such as Gerald’s affair with Eva (whom he knew as Daisy) and the tension eventually reaches
a climax when Mrs Birling's attempts to shift the blame for the girl's suicide onto the father of
her unborn child whom we have worked out to be her own son, just before Eric Birling’s
dramatic entrance.
Once the Inspector has delivered his influential final speech and left, the pace appears to
decrease rapidly as the Birlings mull over their treatment of Eva and whether or not they are
willing to accept responsibility for their actions. The existence of the Inspector and the dead
girl is questioned and it could seem as if there has been a return to the calm of the opening
scene. However, Priestley soon builds the tension again with a telephone call announcing that
a police inspector is on his way to ask some questions about a girl who HAS just died in the
infirmary…
Timeline of the play:
 How to read a play rather than a novel…

It is important to realise that reading a play is quite different to reading a novel. Plays are
written to be performed and, as such, a degree of interpretation is required. You should take
careful note of the stage directions and also the way in which the characters deliver the lines
as this, along with their actual words, are the only insights we have into their real thoughts
and feelings. For example, near the end of the play Eric delivers his lines angrily then
“miserably.” In a novel you could have a narrator explaining exactly how a character is
feeling and why, in a play we must rely on the words they speak (which, of course, may not
be the same as their true feelings) and the stage directions to gain our insights and form our
conclusions.

As you read the stage directions try to imagine the scene, even if you’re reading the play
alone or in lessons. If possible, watch a performance (or several!) of the play as you will then
be able to see how the text has been interpreted. You might be surprised how different
performances can be!

The long opening stage direction is very important as it describes in detail the dining room of
the Birlings’ house, where the play is set. It reveals the lifestyle of the Birlings (see the
chapter: The Opening Stage Directions for a full analysis). We hear of other places, such as
Milwards Department Store and the Palace Bar but whilst you might see these in film
versions or some other performances, the original play is set only in one room.
 Characters

The Birling family can be seen as representative of the wealthy capitalists in society during
the 1900s. Eva Smith represents the working class and disadvantaged women of the time. The
Inspector appears to be the all-knowing voice of the playwright himself.

Mr Birling

Mr. Birling is first described as a, “heavy-looking, rather portentuous man in his middle
fifties with fairly easy manners but rather provincial in his speech.” He seems very proud of
his standing in society and frequently reminds everyone of his achievements, “I was Lord
Mayor here two years ago… there’s a very good chance of a knighthood.”

Mr. Birling is happy about the engagement of his daughter Sheila to Gerald Croft, not
because he believes they love each other and will make each other happy, more because by
marrying Gerald, Sheila will maintain or increase her social status. Gerald is a man whose
parents own an even more successful company than Birling and Co., “Crofts Limited are both
older and bigger than Birling and Company… perhaps we may look forward to the time when
Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for lower costs and
higher prices.” Birling presents the union almost as a business deal and he makes it clear that,
“a man has to mind his own business and look after himself.” Mr. Birling seems concerned
that he does not have the same kind of family connections that Gerald has, he therefore has to
rely on money which he has made rather than that which has been passed on to him. His
mention of the knighthood is significant as this is an award given by others in the community
but J.B. Priestley again seems to be criticising Mr. Birling and his actions as we later find that
he does not support the notion of community at all.

At the start of the play Mr. Birling makes his views on social responsibility perfectly clear.
Interestingly, his opinions of “community and all that nonsense” are comments which are
perfectly timed. Just before this statement he makes other rash claims such as “The Germans
don’t want war,” and “the Titanic… absolutely unsinkable.” An audience, even at the first
performance, know that not only did the Germans play a key part in World War II but the
Titanic also sank. Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony here means Mr. Birling’s
opinions are instantly devalued. Priestley’s clever structure means that when Birling follows
these incorrect claims up with “community and all that nonsense” we, the audience, may
believe that he is continuing to talk rubbish. Priestley effectively gets the audience to agree
with his own socialist views that community is, in fact, far from “nonsense”!

Mr. Birling sacked Eva Smith because she demanded a higher (but probably fair) wage and
went on strike, “She’d had a lot to say – far too much – so she had to go.” He saw her as one
of the leaders of the strike action and rather than consider her personal circumstances or what
she was contributing to the business, it would seem from his use of language that Birling
sacked her with little thought. This was despite him admitting that she was a hard worker.
Mr. Birling’s lack of regret means that it is hard to sympathise with him. He frequently tries
to exert his authority over the Inspector by reminding him of the positions he has held in
society but it never has an effect. Eventually the Inspector makes it clear that, “Public men…
have responsibilities as well as privileges.” This could well be Priestley’s viewpoint as a
socialist.

Mr. Birling does not admit that he was in any way to blame for Eva Smith’s death and even
after other characters such as Sheila and Eric have broken down and clearly been sorry for
their actions Mr. Birling insists, “I can’t accept any responsibility.” He fails to learn the
Inspector (and Priestley’s) lesson of social responsibility. This supports Priestley (and the
Inspector’s) beliefs that it is the younger members of the community who need to be educated
and encouraged to look out for one another if society is to become a better place.

Overall Mr. Birling could be seen as somewhat of a caricature of a typical capitalist

businessman of the time: heartless and ruthless, concerned only with himself and his wealth.
We, the audience, are likely to find it hard to sympathise with his opinions so when he makes
comments at the end of the play about the Inspector being “a Socialist or some sort of crank,”
we are again likely to think that he is talking nonsense. Priestley suggests we should feel that
Socialists (such as himself) are to be respected and valued; they are certainly not to be seen as
cranks!
 Edna

Edna is a very minor character in the play. Her role is really to highlight the wealth of the
Birlings (as they have a maid) and to announce the arrival of the Inspector.

Sheila

During the early 1900s women in society were seen as delicate beings who should be
obedient to their husbands and fathers. Overall they were seen as the “possession” of men so
they had no legal rights over any money, children or land. Women like Sheila who were of
higher class tended to do charity work. In the play we only hear about her going shopping at
Milwards Department Store where she meets Eva. It was at this point in history that women
were starting to want more equal rights with men; the Suffragette movement was beginning.

At the start of the play Sheila appears fairly relaxed; she has just got engaged to Gerald
although it isn’t until he gives her the ring that she says she can really “feel engaged.” She
clearly needs the (expensive) symbol, suggesting she is somewhat superficial and concerned
with her appearance. Despite agreeing to the engagement Sheila clearly does have some
suspicions about why she hadn’t seen very much of Gerald the previous year, “last summer,
when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you.” This comment
builds tension and foreshadows the conflict to come when we later learn exactly where
Gerald was.

Sheila’s story is the second link in a chain of events which appears to have contributed to the
death of Eva Smith. As her connection to Eva is revealed Sheila appears to be quite selfish
and jealous. She was shopping at Milwards when she met sales assistant Eva. Sheila’s
jealousy was based on her belief that Eva looked better than her when they both tried on a
dress. Sheila became jealous and used her influence as a valued customer to have Eva sacked,
“I told him that if they didn’t get rid of that girl, I’d never go near the place again and I’d
persuade mother to close our account with them.”

Unlike her father, Sheila does show remorse for her actions. The stage directions explain that
she looks “as if she’s been crying.” She later states, “I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m
ashamed of it.” Priestley uses her to demonstrate that young people can learn the lesson of
social responsibility and so there is hope for the future of society if we can make them realise
the need to look after others they come into contact with, even if those other people are of
lower social status than themselves.

Sheila can be seen as a product of her environment. Being brought up in a wealthy family in
Edwardian England would mean it is likely that she has had to take little responsibility for her
actions until this point. She seems to grow in confidence as the play progresses and by the
end even stands up to her mother, telling her to stop before it’s “too late.” She also refuses to
take back the engagement ring when she finds out Gerald has cheated on her saying, “it’s too
soon.”

The growth of Sheila as a character is in contrast her parents Mr. and Mrs. Birling who,
representing the older generation, stick to their ways and refuse to accept responsibility for
their treatment of Eva. She can be likened to Eric as they are both young characters who have
accepted the need to take responsibility for their treatment of others.
 Gerald

At the start of the play Gerald is revealed to be the son of a successful businessman and the
fiancé of Sheila Birling. His father owns Crofts Limited which Mr. Birling admits is larger
and older than his own company. It seems Mr. Birling is keen to welcome him into the family
more because of the business ties he could provide, rather than because he could make Sheila
happy! Just like the Birlings, Gerald cannot see how he has done anything wrong when the
Inspector starts his investigation, “I don’t come into this suicide business.” His reaction soon
changes when he hears the name “Daisy Renton” though…

When Sheila questions Gerald on why she didn’t get to see much of him the previous summer
he just blamed being busy at work. He is third in line in the chain of events and the Inspector
soon uncovers an affair that Gerald had with Eva during that same summer.

Gerald met Eva (known as Daisy Renton at the time) when she was working at the Palace
Theatre Bar. He apparently saved her from the unwanted attentions of a man called
Meggarty. He then had a relationship with Eva/Daisy (whilst still seeing Sheila) for several
months. He gave her money but insisted “I didn’t ask for anything in return.” He initially
seems upset about his involvement, “She didn’t blame me at all. I wish to God she had now.”
He does seem genuinely sad about what has happened which may make the audience feel
some sympathy towards him as a character. Despite this, by the end of the play Gerald
doesn’t seem to have totally changed his ways.

At the end of Act 3, when it seems possible that the Inspector wasn’t a real inspector at all,
Gerald offers Sheila the engagement ring back saying “Everything’s alright now.” She
doesn’t immediately take it back, showing that she is not entirely controlled by the men
around her and their wishes. Gerald’s comments though, suggesting “everything’s alright”
show that he is more concerned about being caught than about his actual actions.
 Mrs. Birling

Mrs. Birling is another representative of the older generation. She is (in the opening stage
directions) described as “cold” and introduced as her husband’s “superior.” She appears to be
a somewhat powerful influence in her local area. The only work Mrs. Birling seems to do is
in her position at Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation. She refused to help Eva when she
came to the organisation shortly before her death.

Mrs. Birling and Eric’s stories are interlinked. Eva actually met Eric before she met Mrs.
Birling but his connection to her is the last to be revealed. Eva arrives at Brumley Women’s
Charity Organisation a desperate, pregnant, penniless woman. We later find out she has had
an affair with Eric and become pregnant. In the early 1900s it wasn’t seen as acceptable for
unmarried women to have children so her situation would certainly have been frowned upon.
Eva, knowing this was the case, pretended she was married when asking for help. Since the
father of her baby was Eric she pretended they were married and called herself “Mrs.
Birling”, having no idea that the woman she sought help from was actually his mother (also
called Mrs. Birling!)

The actual Mrs. Birling assumes Eva knows her name and is rudely copying it. She takes
offence and refuses to help the girl. Her reaction could be compared to that of her daughter,
Sheila. They both take offence to something Eva has done and overreact, making Eva’s
terrible situation even worse. Sheila, uncaring at the time, left her jobless and Mrs. Birling
uncaringly left her pregnant, alone and penniless.

During the Inspector’s interrogation Mrs. Birling refuses to accept any responsibility for her
actions but in doing so she unwittingly accuses her own son, “Go and look for the father of
the child. It’s his responsibility.” Even by the end when she realises she did have an
involvement in the chain of events Mrs. Birling insists, “I did nothing that I’m ashamed of.”

Mrs. Birling can be likened to her husband in the play. Neither accepts any responsibility for
their actions; neither learn the lesson of social responsibility. By showing them both acting in
this way Priestley is highlighting the need to focus on educating the younger generation as
they are more “impressionable” and able to change.

The Birlings represent the hard-headed, capitalists in society; Priestley uses An Inspector
Calls to criticise them and suggest to the audience that socialism would make for a better
future.
 Eric

Eric is Mr. and Mrs. Birling’s son, and brother to Sheila. At the start of the play it seems he
has a bit of a drinking problem. He gets “squifffy” and does act in a slightly strange and
uncomfortable way; this is surely a hint that he is in some way involved in the chain of
events? Unlike some of the other characters he seems to accept by the end of the play that it’s
pointless trying to keep secrets from the Inspector and the rest of his family “you know” so
he may as well confess to his interactions with Eva/Daisy.

Just like his sister Sheila, Eric regrets his involvement with Eva Smith. Unlike Sheila though,
his actions could be considered as more serious as he clearly has a drinking problem, forced
himself on Eva, stole money and got her pregnant.

Eric is forced to admit that when he was drunk he was “in that state when a chap easily turns
nasty.” It appears that he forced himself on Eva, “And that’s when it happened. And I don’t
even remember – that’s the hellish thing.” His lack of detail about exactly what happened
suggests that he can barely bring himself to admit what he’s done. The phrase, “that’s when it
happened,” allows us to form our own conclusions about what exactly went on that night.

Eric explains that he continued to see Eva, giving her money when he found out she was
pregnant. This money was stolen from his father. Eric suggests he does not seem to have a
very close relationship with his family; he states his father is, “not a kind of father a chap
could go to when he’s in trouble.” He has clearly behaved in an inconsiderate, immature way.

Although Eric’s actions can be seen as the most despicable, he does seems to show the most
regret for what happened to her. He blames his mother, “you turned her away – yes, and you
killed her” and it takes the Inspector’s intervention to stop the row.

When the Inspector’s validity is brought into question it is clear that Eric understands that it
doesn’t matter whether or not they all had an effect on the same girl, or whether or not
Inspector Goole is a real inspector, “It’s what happened to the girl and what we all did to her
that matters.” He insists, “You lot may be letting yourselves out nicely but I can’t. Nor can
mother. We did her in all right.” By the end of the play Eric, like Sheila, has learned the
lesson of social responsibility. He (along with Sheila) represents the younger generation who
can be educated, take care of one another and therefore help make society a better place for
all to live, no matter their social status.
 Eva Smith/Daisy Renton

Eva can be seen as representative of all of the poor, disadvantaged women in society. The
name “Smith” is the most common in Britain so again we can see her as symbolic of all those
of her class who are suffering in society. Since we never see Eva on stage and never hear
from her directly it is tricky to class her as a “character” to the same extent as the Birlings,
Gerald and Inspector Goole.

We do find out some basic information about the last two years of Eva’s life. Firstly, she
worked hard for Birling and Co. but went on strike due to unfair pay. This behaviour was
similar to that of coal miners and other workers at the time of the play who were also striking
for better pay and conditions. Eva was, however, a good worker - Mr. Birling admitted it
himself!

Eva was pretty enough to make Sheila jealous and Sheila saw to it that she was sacked from
her next job at Milwards Department Store. After this she attracted the attentions of Gerald
and Eric. We know that despite her difficulties she had morals. In this way Priestley
effectively contrasts her to the Birling family who, at the start of the play, do not seem have
many morals at all! Eva refused to marry Eric and refused money from him when she found
out it was stolen. She was strong enough to demand a fair pay rise but she did reach low
points of working in the Palace Theatre bar and eventually committing suicide when she was
pregnant with Eric’s baby.

Priestley uses Eva as a way of making the Birlings realise the effect their actions have had on
an individual. Are Eva Smith and Daisy Renton even the same person? Does the Inspector
have pictures of different girls in his pocket? He fiercely controls who gets to see the images
after all! Ultimately it doesn’t matter. Each character treated a person badly, it doesn’t matter
whether it was the same person or not, they are still to blame for their actions. By making us
doubt exactly who Eva is and whether or not she could be multiple people or whether she
committed suicide, Priestley highlights that this story is not merely about the tragic death of
one young girl. The message of social responsibility must be applied to us all. It shouldn’t
matter who a person is: male or female, rich or poor, everyone should be treated fairly and
with respect. Overall, Eva can be seen as a victim of other people’s selfishness.
 Inspector Goole

As Inspector Goole arrives the stage directions at the start of Act One suggest the lighting
should change from “pink and intimate,” to “brighter and harder.” It is as if he has arrived to
remove the rose-tinted spectacles from the Birling family, put them under a spotlight and
shed light on the situation with Eva Smith.

The name “Inspector Goole” has different possible interpretations. “Goole” sounds like
“ghoul” and suggests someone with an interest in death which would link to the Inspector’s
enquiries about the death of Eva Smith. It could also suggest something sent from the afterlife
to deliver the truth about the Birlings’ behaviour and act as a warning about the future. If the
Inspector was some sort of religious figure sent by God this is reflected in the language he
uses in his final speech, “the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then
they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.” (For further analysis see the chapter
which examines the Inspector’s final speech in full.)

The inspector’s appearance is perfectly timed. Just after Mr. Birling insists that “a man has to
mind his own business and look after himself” the “sharp ring” signals the inspector’s arrival;
it is as if he has arrived to immediately challenge Birling’s opinions. Described as a creating
“an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness,” the Inspector maintains his
composure as the characters reveal their guilt and become increasingly uncomfortable. It is
almost as he is the personification of their guilt. Goole is direct with his use of language from
the start. He describes Eva’s shocking suicide and the disinfectant she drank as having “burnt
her inside out.”

Cleverly it is merely through questioning that the inspector prompts each character to confess
to their wrongdoings. It is as if he (like Priestley) already knows what they have been up to.
Each revelation reveals the story of the death of Eva Smith, almost like a traditional murder
mystery. It is Sheila who first recognises his role as all-knowing, almost God-like, “he
knows. Of course he knows.”

Again like Priestley, Inspector Goole controls the action. He is the catalyst but he also
ensures that each character speaks in turn so that the order of events which contributed to
Eva’s demise is made clear. It is only with his permission that characters are free to speak, to
leave and to view the photograph of the girl that he has in his pocket.

He frequently has his authority challenged by Mr. Birling but he ignores all of his protests
and reminders of his social standing, eventually insisting, “Public men.. have responsibilities
as well as privileges.” Ultimately though, it is not possible for the Inspector to influence all of
the characters to change their selfish ways.
See the chapter on the end of the play and FAQ for analysis on whether or not the Inspector
is real and what the significance is of the photographs he carries around and shows to some
of the characters.
 Age - Old vs Young – Who accepts responsibility and why?

As their guilt is revealed there is a clear division between those characters who do accept
responsibility for their actions and those who do not.

Sheila and Eric are the youngest characters. They both accept that they had a part to play in
Eva Smith’s death and they clearly regret their actions. Their words and the stage directions
both ensure their sorrow is clear. Sheila says, “I behaved badly… I’m ashamed of it” and the
stage directions suggest she should look “as if she’s been crying.” Eric says, “You lot may be
letting yourselves out nicely but I can’t. Nor can mother. We did her in all right.” Neither
change their views when it becomes apparent that Inspector Goole may not be a real
inspector. Similarly they still feel remorse even when it is first reported that no girl has been
brought into the infirmary having committed suicide. It is clear that they have learnt to accept
responsibility for their actions. Eric even becomes frustrated at the end of the play when it
seems as if his parents and Gerald are feeling like their actions didn’t matter if their
behaviour didn’t actually result in the death of a young girl, “You lot may be letting
yourselves out nicely but I can’t. Nor can mother. We did her in all right.”

Gerald is slightly older than Sheila and Eric and does accept some responsibility for his
actions, particularly when he is being questioned by the inspector, “She didn’t blame me at
all. I wish to God she had now.” Despite this, as the end of the play nears he is keen to
believe, “Everything’s alright now.”

The greatest contrast in attitude can be seen between the siblings Sheila and Eric and their
parents.

Mr. and Mrs. Birling refuse to accept that they are even partly to blame for the tragedy. Mr.
Birling makes it clear, “I can’t accept any responsibility,” and near the end of the play when
the Inspector’s validity is brought into question he insists (like Gerald), “But the whole
thing’s different now.” Mrs Birling similarly refuses to feel guilty about her involvement, “I
told him quite plainly that I thought I had done no more than my duty.” It is now important to
consider why Priestley presents the audience with this distinction.

The inspector who could be seen as the voice of Priestley, states that “young ones” are “more
impressionable.” By having the younger characters learn the lesson of social responsibility it
suggests to the audience some hope for the future. The younger generation can be taught to
accept responsibility for one another; it is possible for them to change and if they do society
will be a better place. This fits in neatly with Priestley’s socialist views including the
emphasis he put on education as a way of changing society for the better and it would speak
to an audience. We mustn’t forget that when the play was first performed the audience
members had just experienced World War II so would likely be keen for a compassionate
society where people look out for one another and take responsibility for their actions.
 The Opening Stage Directions – An Analysis

The opening stage directions of An Inspector Calls are quite long. They are very important as
they not only introduce the Birling family but they also describe the dining room of the
Birlings’ house where the action takes place.

The room is described as, “heavily comfortable but not cosy and homelike.” Despite the large
furniture etc. it seems that the assets are for show, a way of the Birlings displaying their rich
lifestyle, rather than for the family to enjoy. This is one of the first hints that all is not as it
first appears.

The lighting is very important. It is “pink and intimate” at the start of the play, before the
Inspector arrives. This could suggest that the characters are looking at life through rose-tinted
spectacles (rose-coloured glasses), in other words, they are oblivious to any wrongdoing; they
are happy with their lives. Certainly when we first hear from the family as they are discussing
Sheila and Gerald’s engagement it does seem as if they are happy and contented, oblivious to
any of their recent poor behaviour.

When the inspector arrives the stage directions state that the lighting should change to
“brighter and harder.” It is as if the inspector has come to metaphorically shine a spotlight on
the Birlings, he is there to “shed light” on the chain of events which led to the death of Eva
Smith. (See the chapter on Inspector Goole for further analysis of his entrance on stage and
his role in the play.)

We also learn in these same stage directions that the Birlings have a parlour maid, Edna. She
is seen clearing the table which includes items such as champagne glasses, a port decanter
and cigarettes. These items, together with Edna, again depict the Birlings as a rich family
who are keen to show off their status to others.

Mr. Birling is described as a, “heavy-looking, rather portentous man in his middle fifties with
fairly easy manners but rather provincial in his speech.” He seems to fit in with the room
since he is “heavy-looking,” just as the furniture is said to be “heavily comfortable.” The
description of him as ‘portentous’ suggests he is quite solemn and the overall effect is a man
who is rather full of his own self-importance.

It is also hard to warm to Mrs. Birling who is described in the stage directions as “cold” and
Mr. Birling’s “superior.” Sheila appears excitable, Eric seems somewhat awkward and is
drinking, whereas Gerald appears self-assured. They are in evening dress, again showing how
their outward appearances are what’s most important to them, arguably more so than their
morals! The characters are summed up at the end of the stage direction as “pleased with
themselves.” The opening exchanges between the characters seems to reflect this mood.
Sheila and Gerald are happy that they have become engaged, Mr. Birling is delighted about
the match because it might prove good for his business and he talks about his hopes of a
knighthood in the near future. It is the arrival of Inspector Goole which interrupts the self-
congratulatory mood of the Birlings with a “sharp ring.”
 Act One - A Summary

The play opens with Mr. and Mrs. Birling, Sheila Birling, Eric Birling and Gerald Croft all
finishing a meal and celebrating the engagement of Sheila to Gerald. The port is passed
around and Mr. Birling makes a speech explaining how he is happy about the impending
marriage, mainly because it could progress his own business if links were built with Crofts
Limited – the company owned by Gerald’s parents. “Crofts Limited are both older and bigger
than Birling and Company… perhaps we may look forward to the time when Crofts and
Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for lower costs and higher
prices.” Surprisingly there is no mention of the love between the couple!

After the toast, Gerald gives Sheila an engagement ring and it is only at that point that she
says she “feels engaged.” It is as if she needs the symbol of the ring (which is probably
valuable) to truly see herself as Gerald’s fiancé. This makes Sheila seem rather superficial
(see the chapter on Sheila Birling for a detailed analysis of her character and role in the
play.)

Mr. Birling starts talking about the Titanic as “unsinkable” and mentions how the “Germans
don’t want war.” An audience, even at the time, would be well aware that Mr. Birling is very
much mistaken at this point. Those living in Britain in 1912 (as the Birlings are) would soon
be experiencing the sinking of the Titanic, two World Wars and lots of strikes and unrest.
When Mr. Birling follows this up these statements with comments such as “community and
all that nonsense,” the audience are likely to think that he is again wrong and Priestley will
have started to achieve his aims – to make the audience aware that community is, in fact, far
from “nonsense.” Priestley believed a sense of community was essential if society was to
become a caring place where people can live happily, no matter what their social status.

Mrs. Birling plays little part in these early conversations, reinforcing her description as
“cold” from the stage directions. The first part of the play is chiefly focused on Mr. Birling;
his lifestyle and opinions.

The stage directions announce the arrival of Inspector Goole with a “sharp ring.” Edna the
parlour maid shows him in while Mr. Birling again emphasises his standing in society, “I was
an alderman for years – and Lord Mayor two years ago – and I’m still on the Bench.” The
inspector is unfazed by Mr. Birling’s claims about his position and explains that he is there to
investigate the death of a young lady who has committed suicide by drinking disinfectant. He
is direct with his words from the start and the nature of her death is shocking, “burnt her
inside out.” This would surely gain the sympathies of an audience, as well as the characters
on stage at the time.
The inspector is completely focused on the task at hand and sets to work questioning Mr.
Birling whose involvement seems to have started the chain of events which led to Eva
Smith’s death. Mr. Birling is told her name and shown a photograph (we never get to see the
photograph and the Inspector only ever shows one character at a time so it is not clear
whether or not they are all being shown the same picture. See the FAQ for further analysis of
the significance of the photographs.)

Mr. Birling soon remembers that Eva was an employee at his factory but admits he sacked
her due to her involvement in strike action over wages. He says he saw her as one of the ring-
leaders and still believes he was right to fire her at the time, even though he recognised she
was a hard working employee. “She’d had a lot to say – far too much – so she had to go.” We
see a change in Mr. Birling’s mood at this point. He is no longer the relaxed, bragging
character from the opening of the play. He is now forced to explain and defend the decisions
he has made. It is clear that he is driven chiefly by money and status; he cares little for the
lives of those affected by his actions. (See the chapter on Mr. Birling for further information
and analysis of his role in the play.)

The inspector, unaffected by Mr. Birling’s comments about his positions of responsibility
requests not to involve his daughter, soon moves onto Sheila Birling who re-enters the dining
room. Eric starts to comment on the proceedings at this stage, recognising that his father’s
actions may have begun the story which resulted in her suicide. Gerald seems to side with
Mr. Birling and cannot seem to see how the events from years ago could have had an effect
on the eventual, tragic outcome. Changing his earlier aggressive approach, Mr. Birling alters
his tone, apologises to the Inspector and tries to control the situation that way but to no avail.

Inspector Goole gradually reveals more about Eva’s life. After she was sacked from Birling
and Co., we learn she ended up unemployed for two months, had no parents or other relatives
to help her and few friends so soon became desperate. It was then that she secured a job at
Milwards Department Store where she was to meet Sheila.

Hearing what happened to Eva upsets Sheila far more than her father but she still doesn’t
recognise the girl’s name at first. The Inspector shows her a photograph; again we are unsure
whether it is the same picture that was shown to her father earlier or whether this is a
different woman. Sheila is immediately upset and Mr Birling leaves the room in search of his
wife. Gerald tries to look at the picture but the Inspector, always controlling the situation,
tells him he must wait.

It seems Eva was happy in her job at Milwards until a valuable customer complained about
her and she was consequently sacked. That customer turns out to be Sheila Birling. It seems
Sheila had tried a dress on that hadn’t suited her and whilst she was looking in the mirror she
saw Eva smiling at the assistant which had infuriated her. Earlier, when fetching the dress for
Sheila, Eva had held the dress up and Sheila explains that it had suited her. She had become
jealous when she had tried the dress on and it hadn’t looked as good. Sheila believed the
smile Eva had given the assistant, Miss Francis as mocking her. Furious, Sheila had
complained to the manager. The store couldn’t afford to lose the business of the Birling
family so sacked Eva.

Unlike her father Sheila does accept responsibility for her actions, she feels very sorry for her
contribution to Eva’s difficulties and runs out of the room in tears. (See the chapter on Sheila
for further analysis of her role in the play.)

Next, the inspector explains how, after her sacking from Milwards, Eva Smith changed her
name to “Daisy Renton.” Gerald reacts immediately he hears this name and it is clear he is
next in the firing line, although the details of his involvement aren’t actually revealed until
Act 2. There is then a reminder from earlier in the play that the previous summer Sheila
hadn’t seen much of Gerald and had become suspicious about his whereabouts. He admits
that he had a relationship with Eva/Daisy but that it ended sixth months ago so therefore he
thinks it had no bearing on her suicide. The act ends with Gerald believing that he can keep
his affair with Daisy a secret from the inspector and Sheila recognising that this isn’t
possible, “he knows. Of course he knows.” The final word, “Well?” comes from the
Inspector, leading us into the next act and the full story of Gerald’s involvement. The word is
even repeated at the very start of Act 2 to add emphasis to it and keep the audience’s attention
on the mystery of Eva’s life and death.

Quick Quiz – Act One – (See the end of the book for the answers!)

1. What are the Birling family celebrating at the very start of the play?

2. Why is Mr. Birling happy about his daughter’s situation?

3. Which two claims does Mr. Birling make about historical events which the audience
would know was untrue?
4. Which word describes Mrs. Birling early in the play?
5. How is the inspector’s arrival announced?
6. How does the inspector say Eva Smith committed suicide?
7. How did Mr. Birling meet Eva Smith?
8. Where does Sheila meet Eva?
9. Which item of clothing looked better on Eva than on Sheila?
10. What does Eva change her name to after being sacked from Milwards, according to
the inspector?
 Act Two – A Summary

Act 2 begins in the same way Act 1 ends, with the Inspector repeating his one word question,
“Well?” The question is aimed at Gerald who has so far admitted he did have an affair with
Eva (whom he knew as “Daisy Renton”) the previous summer.

Gerald tries to stop Sheila from hearing the details, claiming she has suffered enough upset
already but she insists on staying. At the time the play is set, women were thought of as
delicate, fragile creatures who should be protected. Sheila proves that they can withstand
traumatic events and can learn from their mistakes, a point Priestley was trying to raise whilst
writing the play. After all, Eva/Daisy hadn’t been spared any upset or pain in the years
leading up to her death. The Inspector highlights the idea of shared responsibility… if Sheila
is sent away she will be alone with her feelings of guilt. She is allowed to stay.

Mrs. Birling notes how upset Sheila is and how affected she has been by the revelations.
When taking about learning from their mistakes and accepting responsibility the inspector
comments on how “young ones” are “more impressionable.” (See the chapter on Old vs
Young for further analysis on how and why Priestley might have the younger characters in
the play accept responsibility for their actions, whilst the older characters are set in their
ways and continue to try to deny their involvement in the chain of events.)

Before the full story of Gerald’s relationship with Eva/Daisy is revealed, Mrs Birling’s
relationship with Eric is explored. She doesn’t want to listen to the suggestions that Eric
drinks too much; it seems even Gerald knows more about her son than she does. This
distance in their relationship which is evident here in act two sets up the episode later in the
play when Mrs. Birling inadvertently tells the inspector that the father of Eva/Daisy’s child is
to blame for the young girl’s desperate situation. Mrs. Birling doesn’t realise at the time that
she is, in fact, blaming her own son.

Mr Birling then tries to get the Inspector to question Eric at this point so that he can get it
over with and go to bed but the Inspector refuses, again ensuring his complete control over
the situation and the order of revelations. Sheila clearly recognises the power of the Inspector
and how they really are at his mercy. Mr and Mrs. Birling are less keen to see this as the case
and try to regain control wherever they see the opportunity.

The attention then turns back to Gerald who is forced to tell the story of his contribution to
the tragic chain of events that led to the demise of Eva/Daisy. After a brief moment trying to
deny his involvement again, Gerald admits that he met her in the bar at the Palace Variety
Theatre. This is a place known to be the hang-out of prostitutes but he says that Daisy, (as he
knew her) looked different to those girls. She seemed to have a youthful innocent look which
made her stand out. Eric later reveals that he also met Eva in the same bar and also noticed
how she stood out in comparison to the other women there.

Gerald explains that Daisy was being hassled by Alderman Meggarty at the time he first saw
her and he says he wanted to help her. Gerald took her to the County Hotel where they had a
drink and talked. Gerald asked Daisy lots of questions about her background and learned of
her sacking from both Birling and Co. and Milwards, although she was vague about the
actual company names. He also deduced that she was struggling for money so he arranged for
some food to be brought for her.

Two nights later Gerald arranged to meet Daisy again, found her somewhere to live and
ended up having a relationship with her. He insists that he didn’t arrange the accommodation
for her just so that he could have an affair with her, “I didn’t ask for anything in return.”

When questioned about the closeness of their relationship, Gerald isn’t clear about whether or
not he was in love with Daisy. He suggests that her feelings for him were stronger than his
towards her. It was only when he had to go away on business that Gerald broke up with her.
He gave her some money to ensure she could manage on her own for a while. He didn’t know
exactly what her plans were but his belief that she left Brumley is confirmed by Inspector
Goole who says that she, according to her diary, went to the seaside to think of Gerald and
remember the positive aspects of the relationship.

At this point, Sheila hands Gerald back the engagement ring. It seems both Sheila and Gerald
regret their actions and whilst she recognises that he was trying to help Daisy, she doesn’t
feel their relationship is in the same place it was at the start of the evening. Gerald leaves the
house and goes for a walk. (See the chapter on Gerald for further analysis of his character
and his role in the play.)

It seems Gerald is never shown a photograph of Eva/Daisy but Mrs. Birling is. She says she
doesn’t recognise the girl in the picture. The inspector insists that she must know the girl at
which Mr. Birling interrupts and demands an apology. When Mr. Birling yet again tries to
use his social standing to exert authority over the inspector he is sharply reminded that
“Public men… have responsibilities as well as privileges.” Priestley’s key message of social
responsibility is emphasised at every opportunity, usually using Inspector Goole to clearly
voice these opinions.

Sheila accepts the need for them all to admit their guilt. She recaps the chain of events so far:
Eva’s sacking from Birling and Company, her sacking from Milwards and her relationship
with Gerald which came to an end. She advises her mother to confess to her role and the
inspector’s interrogation of Mrs. Birling begins…
Mrs. Biring admits, after a prompting by the Inspector, that she saw Eva Smith two weeks
ago. Eva had tried to get help from the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation of which
Mrs. Birling is an important member. Eva’s name, however, wasn’t clear as when she first
applied to the organisation she called herself “Mrs. Birling.” The actual Mrs. Birling, Sheila’s
mother, took offence to this, believing Eva was just being plain rude. She admits that this
influenced her to refuse the girl help. Her own standing within the organisation meant that her
will was granted and Eva was turned away.

Mrs. Birling adds detail to the story and explains that although Eva had pretended to be
married (no doubt to the man who had made her pregnant, Eric Birling), Mrs. Birling soon
figured out that she was in fact unmarried and hadn’t left a husband who had abandoned her
as she had first said. She tries to avoid giving more specific details, insisting that’s she did
nothing wrong. Mrs. Birling does not accept any responsibility for any wrongdoing at all.

It is as the inspector reminds the Birlings of the horrific nature of Eva’s death that he adds
even more drama by revealing that she was pregnant. Sheila is desperately upset by this
information. Mr Birling is concerned at first that the child belonged to Gerald, his potential
son-in-law and Mrs. Birling unknowingly blames her own son, Eric, “Go and look for the
father of the child. It’s his responsibility.”

The inspector tries to emphasise how Mrs. Birling’s refusal of help really did affect Eva
badly. She had been left alone, poor and only needing advice and some money but Mrs.
Birling hadn’t been willing to offer her anything, despite having children of her own. Even
though she clearly understands the situation Mrs. Birling shows no remorse whatsoever.
Almost predictably by this stage, Mr. Birling is most worried about the effect the revelations
might have on his reputation if the Press find out. He is, after all, expecting a knighthood and
it seems he wouldn’t want anything to harm his chances of receiving that award. Both Mr.
and Mrs. Birling appear to be very selfish characters whose aim is only to protect themselves
and their social status. (See the chapter on selfishness for further analysis of this key theme.)

Mrs. Birling attempts to deflect the attention from herself onto the other family members,
suggesting it was her husband and daughter who forced Eva into unemployment that may
have started the chain of events which ended in such a sad and tragic way.

There is then further explanation of Mrs. Birling’s side of the story. She says that Eva knew
the father of her baby and that he had given her money and offered to marry her but she
realised he wasn’t mature enough for that sort of commitment. The suggestion (by the
inspector) that Eva didn’t take the money because it was stolen, adds weight to the argument
that Eva had morals and may help the audience feel further sympathy for her. If she could
maintain her moral integrity throughout such a difficult time, why can’t the Birlings and
Gerald now admit to their poor behaviour and take responsibility for their actions?
Mrs. Birling repeatedly fails to show any remorse. (See the chapter on Mrs. Birling for
further analysis of her character and role in the play). She realises too late that the drunken
youth she has been blaming for Eva’s situation is actually her own son, Eric. Sheila becomes
increasingly upset and it is clear that she understands Eric’s role in the chain of events. The
act ends with Eric arriving…

Quick Quiz - Act Two – (see the end of the book for the answers!)

1. Which character does the inspector start questioning at the start of Act Two?
2. Where did Gerald first meet Eva/Daisy?
3. Why did Eva/Daisy end up leaving Brumley? Where did she go?
4. Where did Mrs. Birling meet Eva/Daisy?
5. What did Eva/Daisy call herself when she first met Mrs. Birling?
6. Mrs. Birling thought she was just being rude but why did Eva/Daisy give herself the
name “Mrs. Birling” when she went to the organisation for help?
7. Does Mrs. Birling accept responsibility for her actions?
8. Whom does Mrs. Birling blame for the death of Eva Smith?
9. Which award does Mr. Birling think he is due to receive? (He therefore doesn’t want
any negative attention from the press.)
10. Why didn’t Eva take the money she’d been offered by the father of her baby?
 Act Three – A Summary

Act 3 picks up exactly where Act 2 leaves off, with Eric having arrived home. He
acknowledges how it’s pointless trying to keep any secrets, “You know.”

Sheila briefly fills Eric in on Mrs. Birling’s attempts to blame the father of Eva’s child and
we are reminded of Eric’s drinking habit. Despite Sheila’s repeated attempts to reveal the
truth Mrs. Birling still attempts to defend her son, denying his drinking problem. Eric briefly
turns against Sheila calling her a “sneak” but this doesn’t last long as he is soon asking for a
drink before he begins the account of his relationship with Eva Smith. His father tries to stop
him having a drink but again, showing he is in control, the Inspector allows it so that Eric
feels he can tell his story.

Eric explains how he met Eva in the Palace Theatre bar (the same place Gerald had met Eva
the previous November.) He was drunk or as he describes it, “squiffy.” He had bought drinks
for Eva, accompanied her home and, despite her telling him she did not want him to come in,
insisted. He says he was “in that state when a chap easily turns nasty.” It appears that he
forced his way in and had sex with Eva, “And that’s when it happened. And I don’t even
remember – that’s the hellish thing.” At this point, Mr. Birling insists his shocked wife and
daughter leave the room. This is a reminder that at the time, many women were seen as
fragile and in need of protection from emotional as well as physical harm. Obviously the
Birlings had been less keen to protect women of a lower class, such as Eva, in the same way.

Eric met up with Eva again a fortnight later. They slept together again and continued to have
a sexual relationship until Eva informed Eric that she was pregnant with his baby. Again
Eva’s morals are highlighted as Eric explains that Eva didn’t want to marry Eric because she
knew he didn’t love her. It seems she is mature and recognises that Eric couldn’t give her
stability and probably wouldn’t take responsibility for her and the baby.

At no stage does Eric actually mention Eva’s name so the confusion about her identity and
whether the Birlings actually all met the same girl continues. (See the chapter on “The
Photographs” for further details on this.)

Eric gave Eva about fifty pounds which he stole from his father’s office. His parents are both
shocked at this revelation, clearly they don’t know their son nearly as well as they thought
they did. Mr. Birling immediately worries about how the crime can be covered up, no doubt
thinking about the need to uphold his reputation. Priestley is making the point that just
because someone has money or has had a privileged upbringing, doesn’t mean they are
destined to become moral, pillars of society. It seems Eric’s relationship with his father hasn’t
helped the situation, “not a kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble.”
Eva stopped taking the money from Eric when she realised it had been stolen, so again she
shows that she is willing to do the right thing even if it means she is worse off herself. Eric is
unaware until this moment that Eva had then visited his mother and asked for her help before
being rejected. Eric then suggests that his mother is to blame for the deaths of the girl and his
baby as she was the final person (chronologically) in the chain of events which led to Eva’
death, “you turned her away – yes, and you killed her.” (See the chapter on Eric’s character
for further explanation and analysis of his role in the play.)

This accusation sparks off a row between the family members but the inspector soon
intervenes and makes it clear that they all had a part to play in the death of a young girl. He
reminds each of them of their roles which effectively also serves as a reminder to the
audience as the chain of events is completed.

Next comes the inspector’s very influential final speech. (A full analysis of this speech can be
found in the chapter “The Inspector’s Final Speech.”) After this the Inspector departs,
leaving the Birlings to talk over the events of the evening. The way the family talk to one
another at this point in the play is in stark contrast to the way they spoke at the start of the
play, when they were celebrating Sheila’ engagement to Gerald and were unaware of how
badly they had all behaved towards a girl.

Once they’ve been left alone, the Birlings quickly go back to blaming one another for the
events. Mr and Mrs. Birling are still refusing to take any responsibility for their actions.
Sheila and Eric act as a contrast and appear very distressed about their involvement. Yet
again Mr. Birling is worried about how any of this information will reflect on him if it
becomes public knowledge.

Sheila is the first to wonder whether or not Inspector Goole is actually a real inspector. Mr
Birling chiefly blames Eric for what happened but also insists that is certainly does matter if
he’s real, whereas Sheila recognises that it doesn’t change their previous behaviour; they all
still treated a young girl in the way they did. (See the chapter on “Is the Inspector real?” for
further explanation and analysis of why the Inspector’s identity is so mysterious.)

Mrs. Birling agrees with her husband that who Inspector Goole was makes a difference
whereas Eric sides with Sheila, highlighting the difference in the generations and how the
younger characters are willing to accept responsibility for their actions, unlike the older
characters. (See the chapter “Age – Old vs young” for further analysis of this and why
Priestley may have presented a division in this way in order to teach his audience about
social responsibility.) Gerald returns to the room.

Both Mr and Mrs. Birling try to stop Sheila from filling Gerald in on the rest of the story but
it is clear that Gerald is preoccupied with something else so the tension rises again. He says
he met another police officer whilst he was out who told him there was nobody on the force
with the name Inspector Goole. Mr. Birling is excited by this, believing that they will no
longer need to accept any responsibility or feel guilty if they haven’t actually been caught by
anyone. He rings the Chief Constable who confirms what Gerald had said, that there is no
Inspector Goole on their staff.

Sheila and Eric remain upset whereas Mr. and Mrs. Birling seem to relax, almost acting as if
they are suddenly the victims as they have been part of a hoax. Eric understands that it
doesn’t matter whether they have been caught or not, he insists “It’s what happened to the
girl and what we all did to her that matters.”

It is Gerald who questions whether or not each of them have actually been in contact with the
same woman. They all admitted what they had done but, as Gerald explains, they did not all
see the same photograph at the same time. More questions are raised about whether or not
this matters. What if it was a different girl? Does that excuse their actions? For example, does
Sheila having an innocent girl sacked from Milwards not matter if that girl hadn’t already
been fired from other company some time before? (See the chapter on “Unanswered
questions” for further analysis)

Mr. Birling and Gerald go as far as suggesting that no girl may have died at all. Gerald rings
the infirmary and informs the family that no girl has been brought in after drinking
disinfectant; the Infirmary haven’t seen a case of suicide for months. At this, Mr and Mrs.
Birling seem to return to the mood of celebration that started the play, whereas Sheila and
Eric remain aware that each of them has treated one young girl badly, even if that wasn’t the
same girl and even if nobody had committed suicide. They have learnt the need to take
responsibility for their actions towards others. Priestley’s message of social responsibility has
been learned by the younger, “more impressionable” generation.

Gerald tries to return to the situation that started the play by offering Sheila the engagement
ring back but Sheila, showing her independence and growth as a character refuses saying,
“it’s too soon.” Just as the early scene was interrupted by the “sharp ring” of the doorbell,
signalling the arrival of the Inspector, at this point it is the telephone that “rings sharply,”
interrupting their conversation. Mr. Birling answers the phone and reveals that it is the police
on the line, a girl has died after swallowing disinfectant and an inspector is on his way to
question them. (See “The End of the Play” for further analysis of this section.)

Quick Quiz – Act Three - (see the end of the book for the answers!)

1. Who is the final character to be questioned by the inspector?

2. What does Eric call his sister, Sheila, when she talks of his drinking habit?
3. Where did Eric meet Eva/Daisy?
4. Eva had a relationship with Eric and became pregnant by him but why didn’t she want
to marry him?

5. How much money did Eric give Eva? Where did it come from?
6. How does Eric describe the relationship with his father?
7. Whom does Eric blame for Eva’s death?
8. Which two characters appear particularly distressed by their involvement in the chain
of events?

9. Who rings the Chief Constable to confirm Gerald’s suspicions that Inspector Goole
isn’t a real inspector?
10. What information is contained in the final phone call at the very end of the play?
 The Inspector’s Final Speech – An Analysis

Inspector Goole’s parting words are very important as they sum up the main message of the
play. There are three key sections to consider. Firstly, “One Eva Smith has gone – but there
are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with
their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with
our lives.” Here Priestley highlights that Eva Smith is actually a symbol, a representative for
all other poor citizens in the community. The story hasn’t finished with her death as there are
other women and men (John Smiths) who need looking after. It is essential that we all take
responsibility for our actions towards others, including those less fortunate than ourselves.
The surname “Smith” is one of the most common in Britain so this again highlights that Eva
actually stands for the other poor or disadvantaged members of society.

This section is followed by possibly the most important lines in the entire play, “We don’t
live alone. We are members of one body – we are responsible for each other.” It is hard to
imagine an exam answer which doesn’t include these lines. They sum up Priestley’s message
of social responsibility completely. Whether answering on characters, themes, structure etc.
you could include analysis of these lines as the whole play revolves around the inspector (as
the voice of Priestley) delivering a message of social responsibility both to the Birlings and to
an audience.

The final part of the speech contains a warning for those unwilling to accept this lesson of
social responsibility. The following section is the most significant, “the time will soon come
when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and
anguish. Good night.” The words “fire and blood and anguish,” have at least two possible
interpretations. Firstly, they appear in the Bible and so one suggestion is that Priestley (via
the inspector) is saying if men and women are unwilling to take responsibility for one another
here on earth, then they will be sent to hell to learn the lesson there (“fire” and “anguish”
certainly suggest hell). This interpretation fits in with the idea of Inspector Goole being a
“ghoul” from the afterlife or a messenger from God sent to warn those on Earth of the
consequences of their actions if they don’t learn to take responsibility for their behaviour.

Alternatively, the phrase could refer to war since “fire and blood and anguish” are all words
with the connotations of war. The inspector may be warning both the Birlings and the
audience that if men and women refuse to look after one another, more wars may follow.
Remember the play was first performed just after the wars, to an audience who had
experienced one or both of them, but it is set in 1912, just BEFORE World War I. The
Birlings who are from a society where many of the rich were selfish and only concerned with
themselves and their money, would be just about to go through that war. Priestley/The
inspector’s words and warning are therefore highly relevant to both the characters and an
audience.
 The End of the Play, Unanswered Questions and FAQ –
What is the play REALLY about?

Did I miss something? Unanswered questions…

There are several questions which remain unanswered and several issues which remain
unresolved at the end of “An Inspector Calls.” There are different possible interpretations of
the ending. Some readers/audience members may be frustrated that it’s not entirely clear
whether or not Inspector Goole was a real Inspector, whether or not Eva/Daisy are the same
person and whether or not the Birling family did actually contribute to someone’s death. It is
therefore important to examine why Priestley MIGHT have chosen to leave some of these
questions unanswered (never put in an essay that it was because he couldn’t think of or
decide upon a firm ending!) So…

Was Inspector Goole real?

Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether Inspector Goole was a real inspector or not! The reason
Priestley leaves this question unanswered is likely because that’s not what the play is really
about. By having us, the audience (and the Birlings) question whether or not Goole was real
and whether or not the family are actually on trial it makes us focus on the actions and
attitude of the characters, regardless of the outcome. Ultimately, does it matter if you commit
a crime but don’t get caught? And don’t feel guilty? Or take any responsibility? Priestley
(and the Inspector) believe it DOES matter. It’s not about whether or not you (like Sheila)
have someone fired who has already been fired from another job, it’s that Eva was unfairly
sacked in the first place. Priestley, a socialist, is suggesting that the lesson to be learned is one
of social responsibility…. We should take responsibility for our behaviour towards others
because that’s the right thing to do, not because we’re worried who will catch us doing
otherwise.

What is the significance of the photographs he carries?

Who is in the Inspector’s photographs? Are Eva and Daisy the same person?
Again, it doesn’t matter! Ultimately the Birlings did what they did to a person; it doesn’t
matter if it was the same young girl. This ties in with the mystery surrounding Inspector
Goole’s identity. The Birlings treated someone badly and it doesn’t really matter if they were
part of a chain of events or not. The point is we all need to take responsibility for our actions
and look after one another. The inspector makes this message clear in his final speech, “We
are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.”
Eric never reveals the name of the girl he met and Mrs. Birling only knew the girl by the
name she called herself, also “Mrs. Birling.” It is possible that it was a different girl whom
they all met but ultimately it makes no difference as they still treated a girl (any girl) in the
way they did.

The photographs are a device which prompt the audience (and the characters) to consider
whether or not Eva/Daisy are the same person and whether or not each of the Birlings has, in
some way, had an effect on the same girl. The characters sometimes try and see the same
picture but the Inspector never allows it, always controlling the situation and making them
wait their turn (returning the picture/pictures to his pocket in the meantime).

It is Gerald, near the end of the play, who questions whether or not the Inspector is real and
whether or not they have all been being questioned about the same girl. Eric and Sheila
remain distraught… it doesn’t matter to them whether or not Goole is actually an inspector
and whether or not they have all been talking about the same girl. They both recognise their
wrongdoings and take responsibility for their actions. In contrast, Mr. and Mrs. Birling see
the possibilities of fakery as a way of avoiding the situation and any guilt they may be feeling
over their actions (See Age - Old vs Young for further analysis of this division in the
generations).

What’s the significance of the telephone call at the very end of the play?

Just when the tension seems to have reduced with the information that there is no Inspector
Goole on the force in Brumley and no girl is in the Infirmary having committed suicide by
drinking disinfectant, the final telephone call builds it up again before leaving us on a cliff
hanger.

This structure could be frustrating for some readers/member of the audience so it is essential
to consider why Priestley might have chosen to end his play in this way. Let’s revisit the
Inspector’s final speech when he says, “the time will soon come when, if men will not learn
that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night.” (See the
chapter “The Inspector’s Final Speech” for full analysis of his last words).

To recap, Priestley is suggesting that people have the choice whether or not to learn the
lesson of social responsibility. If they refuse to help others and remain very selfish in their
approach to life then ultimately, he says, they will not get away with it. The words “fire,
blood and anguish” could refer to either war or hell. If people refuse to accept responsibility
for anyone other than themselves then this attitude could end in the horror of war.
Alternatively, it may mean they will have to pay the price in the afterlife as “fire, blood and
anguish” are all words associated with Hell.
Even though Eric, Sheila and to some extent Gerald accept responsibility for their actions
during the course of the play, Mr. and Mrs. Birling do not (see the chapter Age – Old vs
Young for further analysis of this division.) The final phone call, where the Birlings learn that
a girl has now died after drinking disinfectant and is on the way to the Infirmary, supports the
ideas proposed by the inspector in his final speech. It seems the lesson of social responsibility
is inescapable. Men and women will be forced to learn that lesson one way or another. Sure
enough, the Birlings are to be questioned after all and will have to face the consequences of
their actions.

Is the play really about the Birlings?

No! The Birlings, Eva and Inspector Goole can all be seen as symbols. The Birlings represent
the wealthy in society whom Priestley criticises as selfish - concerned primarily with money
and their reputations. The younger characters Eric and Sheila show that young people are, as
the inspector says, more “impressionable.” They are shown to be capable of learning the
lesson of social responsibility and changing their ways. This offers hope to an audience of the
time who had just lived through one or two World Wars and were trying to rebuild futures. If
we educate young people, they are the ones who will make for a better society as they grow
up.

Mr. and Mrs. Birling represent the older, wealthy citizens who are equally selfish and capable
of being cruel but who are also less likely to change in their ways. Due to this, Priestley may
well be proposing that we focus on the education of young people and making them realise
the need to take responsibility for their actions, rather than potentially wasting time on people
far less likely to change.

Eva represents the working class, not only women but men too. As the Inspector says, “One
Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and
John Smiths still left with us…” This quote emphasises how the story isn’t just about Eva but
it’s to make us realise that there are many people alive and suffering in our society. We
should be aware that they may be struggling and help them whenever possible, rather than
just focusing on our own lifestyle and gains in a selfish way. (See the character of Eva Smith
for further analysis of her role in the play).

Rather than being a play about Eva and the Birlings the play can be seen as a vehicle for
Priestley to deliver his socialist views (via the character of Inspector Goole.) The Inspector
often seems to be all-knowing, almost in a God-like way, but of course Priestley as the
playwright is also in a position of knowing everything. He frequently makes comments which
seem to come from the playwright himself such as, “Public men… have responsibilities as
well as privileges.”
What is Priestley’s main message in the play? Is there anything I MUST include in an
analytical essay?

It is hard to see how an essay could be written about ‘An Inspector Calls’ without including
Priestley’s message of social responsibility. See the chapters on the Inspector’s final speech
for analysis of how the Inspector sums up the message. See also the Age – old vs young
chapter for explanation of how and why the different generations of Birlings differ in their
ability to learn this lesson. Finally, see the sample essay on the theme of social responsibility.
 Themes and Techniques:
Key theme: Class

As a socialist, Priestley was interested in the class system and how it had the power to divide
society. The division in classes plays an important role in “An Inspector Calls.” Eva
represents the working class members of society whereas the Birling family and Gerald
represent the wealthy upper-middle class.

Mr. Birling is very anxious to maintain his social status. He drops hints that he believes he is
due a knighthood, “I was Lord Mayor here two years ago… there’s a very good chance of a
knighthood.” He also tries to use his status to exert power over the inspector, “I was an
alderman for years – and I’m still on the Bench.” His comments have no effect on the
inspector who is quick to remind him that “Public men... have responsibilities as well as
privileges.” This is also the viewpoint of the playwright.

Once the truth about his (and his family’s) involvement with Eva is revealed, Mr Birling is
again concerned about how this might reflect on him and his social standing if the news were
to reach the Press. He is far more worried about ruining his reputation than he is distraught
about having contributed to the death of Eva.

Mr. Birling is keen for his daughter Sheila to marry Gerald Croft, seemingly just because,
“Crofts Limited are both older and bigger than Birling and Company… perhaps we may look
forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working
together – for lower costs and higher prices.” There is no mention (by him) of the love that
Gerald and Sheila share! He wants Sheila to maintain her current social status and class in a
time when many women were seen as the property of their fathers and husbands.

Key theme: Love and Relationships

The relationships in the play are interesting to consider. At the start of the play we hear of
Sheila’s engagement to Gerald. The couple seem happy enough together at the start of the of
the play but the focus, however, is on the match being beneficial for her father’s company,
Birling and Co. “Crofts Limited are both older and bigger than Birling and Company…
perhaps we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing
but are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” During the time the play is set
(1912) most women were seen as the possession of men so Sheila is in effect being passed
from her father to her future husband. There is little mention of love between the two, just her
need for an engagement ring so she can really “feel engaged.” There is also a suggestion of
Gerald’s affair with Eva/Daisy in Sheila’s early comment, “last summer, when you never
came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you.”
Mr. and Mrs. Birling are a married couple but again there seems little affection between the
two. Mrs. Birling is described as her husband’s “superior” at the start of the play. Despite
their relationship appearing rather cold (which is exactly the word used to describe Mrs.
Birling herself at the start of the play,) they do share the same views on social responsibility.
Neither are prepared to take responsibility for their parts in the death of Eva Smith.

Eva’s relationships with both Gerald and Eric started when she met each of them in the bar at
the Palace Variety Theatre. In both cases the men seemed to be trying to help the young girl
whom they were attracted to. Both say that she stood out from the other women in the bar and
both ended up giving her money to help her out. However, both relationships were flawed.
Gerald was having an affair behind Sheila’s back and Eric forced himself on Eva and
eventually got her pregnant. Neither claim that they loved her but it seems Eva did love
Gerald as she went away after the relationship ended to try and get over what had happened.

Key theme: Selfishness

Priestley uses ‘An Inspector Calls’ to criticise Capitalists and all that the Birling family
represent so it is unsurprising that selfishness is a key theme in the play. Mr. Birling can be
seen as selfish for focusing on his business and the profits it makes, rather than on the welfare
of his workers. Eva and others went on strike to appeal for a better deal but he sacked her
without further thought. Similarly, Mr. Birling is happy about his daughter’s engagement to
Gerald Croft because he can see how the connection could boost his own business, “Crofts
Limited are both older and bigger than Birling and Company… perhaps we may look forward
to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for
lower costs and higher prices.” He is frequently concerned with his reputation and how his
involvement in the chain of events which led to Eva’s death might reflect on his and his
chances of a knighthood. He is certainly selfish in his attitude and behaviour.

Sheila can also be seen as selfish as she was concerned only with her own feelings of
jealousy when she realised that Eva looked better in a dress than she did during her trip to
Milwards Department Store. She does, at least, realise the error of her ways as the play
progresses, “I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed of it.” Similarly Sheila’s mother
Mrs. Birling is driven by her feelings of irritation when faced with a young girl using her
name and requesting help from the charity organisation she worked for. She does not
consider (or care about) the impact her refusal of help will have on Eva/Daisy. Sheila does
show some compassion and regret for what happened but Mrs. Birling maintains her selfish
attitude throughout the play.

Eric Birling appears as a selfish character when he forces his way into Eva’s lodgings, the
night he met her in the Palace Theatre bar. Again he is only concerned with his feelings at the
time and does not think of the longer term implications. He does, like Sheila, regret his
actions and change his selfish views by the end of the play.

Despite initially appearing to regret his actions, by the end of the play Gerald is looking for a
way out of his guilty feelings. At the suggestion that Goole might not be a real inspector he is
quick to selfishly conclude, “Everything’s alright now.”
 Structure: Dramatic irony

Dramatic irony is a technique used which allows the audience to know something which a
character doesn’t. Priestley uses this in the play when Mr. Birling makes statements about the
Titanic being “unsinkable,” and when he says the “Germans don’t want war.” Any audience,
whether in 1945 when the play was first performed, or today, would know that not only did
the Germans play a key part in World War II but the Titanic also sank. Priestley’s effective
use of dramatic irony here means Birling’s opinions are instantly devalued. Priestley’s clever
structure means that when Birling follows this up with comments about “community and all
that nonsense” we, the audience, may believe that he is continuing to talk rubbish. Priestley
effectively gets the audience to agree with his own socialist views that community is, in fact,
far from “nonsense”!

Nearer the end of the play the audience and Sheila are likely to have worked out that Eric is
the father of Eva/Daisy’s baby but Mrs. Birling is unaware of this when she says, “Go and
look for the father of the child. It’s his responsibility.” The use of dramatic irony in the play
helps build tension and allows Priestley to deliver his message of social responsibility to an
audience.

Structure: Time

Interestingly Priestley studied the concept of time himself so it is not surprising that he
experiments with it in the play. He considered Ouspensky’s theory which suggests that when
we die we re-start our lives if we have failed to learn from any mistakes made in that lifetime.
He also studied Dunne’s theory which again focuses on learning from your mistakes. This
theory proposes that we have all been given the ability to look forward in time so that we can
avoid errors before we make them (as well as learning from mistakes in our past). The idea of
learning from your mistakes is certainly a key idea in “An Inspector Calls.” It is as if
Inspector Goole is able to look into the future to when the family are to be questioned by the
“real” inspector who is on his way to question them at the very end of the play. He
encourages the characters to look back at their behaviour towards Eva and gives them the
opportunity to learn from their mistakes. (See the sample essay on social responsibility for
further analysis of how the characters in the play choose whether to learn from their mistakes
and the resulting effect of their choices.)

Time can be considered in other ways in “An Inspector Calls.” Firstly, the time when the play
was set. For full analysis of this please read the chapter “Written in1945 but set in 1912….”

We should also consider the ways in which Priestley uses time in the play itself. The play is
set from September 1920 to April 1912. The play begins, however, with the Birlings
celebrating the engagement of Sheila to Gerald just prior to the arrival of the inspector. Here
is a reminder of the timeline of the play:

The structure of the play can be liked to a “Whodunnit?” murder mystery. It starts off with
the death of Eva Smith and the inspector forces the Birlings and Gerald to look back over the
events of the previous 19 months. The chain of events allows the audience to piece together
what might have happened to Eva/Daisy if, in fact, they had all had dealings with the same
young girl. (See the chapter on unanswered questions for further analysis of whether or not
Eva/Daisy/the girl in the photographs are all the same person!) The stories are revealed
gradually and there is use of dramatic irony, for example when we figure out that Eric is the
father of Eva’s baby before Mrs. Birling does (see the chapter on dramatic irony for further
details on this.)

Priestley, however, does not dwell merely on the events of the past. The whole point of the
play is to show that people can make a positive contribution to society if they accept
responsibility for their actions and learn from their mistakes. It is about learning from the past
to improve the future.

The end of the play can also be linked to the theme of time. The final telephone call where
the family learn that a girl HAS died from drinking disinfectant and IS now on her way to the
infirmary, together with the news that an inspector is going to call (again) is puzzling. The
reason for this ending could be to show that you can never avoid taking responsibility for
your actions (see the FAQ chapter about Unanswered questions for further analysis of the
ending). It is as if the action we’ve just seen is about to happen all over again, possibly
because not all of the family members took the opportunity to learn the error of their ways.

Structure: Conflict and Tension

At the start of the play the Birlings appear to be content. They are celebrating the engagement
of Sheila to Gerald and everyone seems happy about the match. The first sign of any tension
is when Sheila mentions how she is concerned about Gerald’s whereabouts the previous
summer, “last summer, when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to
you.”

The first real conflict occurs when Mr. Birling meets Inspector Goole. Mr. Birling represents
a capitalist viewpoint whereas the Inspector is the socialist voice of Priestley. Mr. Birling is
focused on his business, “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself,”
whereas the inspector believes he has a greater social duty that he realises, “Public men…
have responsibilities as well as privileges.” Neither of the characters backs down on this and
they end the play with differing beliefs.

Tensions rise between other characters as the play progresses. Sheila becomes frustrated that
her parents won’t accept responsibility for their actions, plus she refuses to take back
Gerald’s engagement ring after she learns of his affair with Eva/Daisy. Sheila tries to get the
others to stop stalling and get on with admitting what they’ve done. She realises that the
inspector is well aware of all of their stories so there is no point trying to keep anything from
him.

Mrs. Birling refuses to accept any responsibility for her actions which frustrates both Sheila
and Eric. Tensions are kept within the Birling family (and Gerald) as the inspector refuses to
rise to any challenge. Mr. Birling tries to exert his authority by reminding him of his positions
in society but the inspector ignores these kinds of comments. Mrs. Birling is similarly
confrontational but to no avail. She ends up blaming her own son Eric for Eva’s death so
tension continues to rise as we realise that it was him that forced himself on Eva and
eventually got her pregnant.

The play seems to reach its climax with the inspector’s final speech. Here he delivers the
main message of the play, “We don’t live alone. We are members of one body – we are
responsible for each other.” (See the chapter on the Inspector’s final speech for a full
analysis.)

Tensions do reduce rapidly however after the Inspector leaves and after Gerald returns,
questioning whether Inspector Goole is even a real inspector. Phone calls confirm that there
is no Inspector Goole on the force and no girl has been brought into the infirmary. The older
characters are keen to suggest that, “the whole thing’s different now.” Sheila and Eric
disagree. Other than the opening, this could be seen as a time in the play when tension is at its
lowest.
It is the final phone call when the Birlings learn that a girl has, in fact, now arrived at the
infirmary having committed suicide by drinking disinfectant that delivers the final twist.
They also hear an inspector IS coming to call which quickly ramps up the tension again. The
play ends on a tense cliff-hanger with the shocked Birlings waiting for the arrival of another
inspector.
 Sample Essay
How does Priestley deliver a message of social
responsibility in ‘An Inspector Calls’?

‘An Inspector Calls’ is set in 1912, a time when there was a class divide in Britain and many
were expected to know their place in society and not attempt to disrupt that position.
Priestley’s play was first performed in 1945, just as two World Wars had ended. An audience
at the time had suffered the consequences of others refusing to take responsibility for their
actions. It was also a time when bosses were most concerned with the profit, rather than the
welfare of their workers. Through his play, it could be argued that Priestley delivers a
message of social responsibility to an audience in the hope that they may realise the need to
educate young people and have them think about the effect their actions may have on those
they meet. As a socialist, Priestley believed that all citizens should be cared for; the focus
should not just be on the wealthy few.

Inspector Goole appears to be the voice of Priestley in the play. He is the one who speaks to
the Birling family about their alleged role in the death of Eva Smith. As he arrives on stage
the stage directions suggest a lighting change from, “pink and intimate,” to “brighter and
harder.” Prior to the inspector’s arrival, the “pink and intimate” lighting suggests that the
characters are looking at life through rose-tinted spectacles (rose-coloured glasses), in other
words, they are oblivious to any wrongdoing; they are happy with their lives. When the
lighting changes to “brighter and harder,” it is as if the Inspector has come to metaphorically
shine a spotlight on the Birlings; his presence will “shed light” on the chain of events which
led to the death of Eva Smith. He is also there to reveal their guilt and try to teach them the
lesson of social responsibility.

The Birlings are a wealthy family, this is made clear from the opening stage directions which
mentions them having a parlour maid, Edna, and furniture which is “heavily comfortable.” At
the start of the play the family are celebrating Sheila Birling’s engagement to Gerald Croft.
They all seem at ease, although there are suggestions of underlying tensions such as when
Sheila questions where her fiancé was the previous summer, “last summer, when you never
came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you.” None of the family members
seem to feel particularly guilty about anything at this point in the play, in fact they are
described as being, “pleased with themselves.”

Mr. Birling is the first to be questioned by the inspector over his role in the death of Eva
Smith, a former employee of his company, Birling and Co. He seems keen to hold positions
of power, “I was Lord Mayor here two years ago…” but he does not seem willing to accept
the responsibility which comes with such positions. The inspector is quick to remind him,
“Public men… have responsibilities as well as privileges.” This can also be seen as
Priestley’s view. Mr. Birling is almost a caricature of a capitalist businessman. The
playwright uses him to criticise others who hold similar positions in society.
Mr. Birling is seen as an ultimately selfish man who is only concerned with the profit of his
company. He voices opinions such as, “a man has to mind his own business and look after
himself.” He even describes the idea of a more united society as “community and all that
nonsense,” showing his unwillingness to take any responsibility for others. The structure of
the play, however, serves in Priestley’s favour as prior to these comments he has Mr. Birling
make other rash claims such as “The Germans don’t want war,” and “the Titanic… absolutely
unsinkable.” An audience (even at the first performance) would know that not only did the
Germans play a key part in World War II but the Titanic also sank. Priestley’s effective use
of dramatic irony here means Birling’s opinions are instantly devalued. Priestley’s clever
structure means that when Birling follows these claims up with “community and all that
nonsense” we, the audience, may believe that he is continuing to talk rubbish. Priestley
effectively gets the audience to agree with his own socialist views that community and taking
responsibility for others is, in fact, far from “nonsense”!

Mr. Birling sacked Eva Smith because she demanded a higher (and probably fairer) wage and
went on strike, “She’d had a lot to say – far too much – so she had to go.” It seems from his
use of language that Birling sacked her with little thought. This was despite him admitting
that she was a hard worker. Birling’s lack of regret means that it is hard to sympathise with
him. He does not admit that he was in any way to blame for her death and even after other
characters such as Sheila and Eric have broken down and clearly been sorry for their actions,
Mr. Birling insists “I can’t accept any responsibility.” He fails to learn Priestley’s lesson of
social responsibility. This fits supports the idea that it is the younger members of society who
need to be educated and encouraged to look out for one another if society is to become a
better place.

Wealthy women at the time such as Sheila and Mrs. Birling were generally given little in the
way of responsibilities. Most did no work other than charity work and they were generally
seen as the property of their father or husbands. In the play we only hear of Sheila going
shopping and of Mrs. Birling doing some work for the Brumley Women’s Charity
Organisation. Unlike her mother, Sheila shows that it is possible for wealthy women to take
responsibility for their behaviour towards others.

Sheila is the second member of the Birling family to be questioned by Inspector Goole. As
her connection to Eva is revealed, Sheila appears to be quite selfish and lacking in
consideration for others. She was shopping at Milwards when she first met Eva whom she
believed looked better than herself when they both tried on a dress. Sheila became jealous
and used her influence as a valued customer to have Eva sacked, “I told him that if they
didn’t get rid of that girl, I’d never go near the place again and I’d persuade mother to close
our account with them.”

Unlike her parents, Sheila does show remorse for her actions. The stage directions explain
that she looks, “as if she’s been crying.” She later states, “I behaved badly too. I know I did.
I’m ashamed of it.” Priestley uses her to demonstrate that young people can learn the lesson
of social responsibility and so there is hope for the future. They can realise the need to look
after others they come into contact with, even if those other people are of a lower social status
than themselves.

Just like the Birlings, Gerald cannot see how he has done anything wrong when the inspector
starts his investigation, “I don’t come into this suicide business.” His reaction soon changes
when he hears the name “Daisy Renton” though…

When Sheila questions Gerald on why she didn’t get to see much of him the previous summer
he lies and blames being busy at work. The inspector soon uncovers an affair that Gerald had
with Eva during that same summer. He is third in line in the chain of events which
supposedly led to Eva’s suicide.

Gerald met Eva (known as Daisy Renton at the time) when she was working at the Palace
Theatre bar. He apparently saved her from the unwanted attentions of a man called Meggarty.
He then had a relationship with Eva/Daisy (whilst seeing Sheila) for several months. Gerald
seemed to take some responsibility for her, giving her money but insisting, “I didn’t ask for
anything in return.” He initially seems upset about his involvement, “She didn’t blame me at
all. I wish to God she had now.” He does seem affected and sad about what has happened
which may make the audience feel some sympathy towards him as a character, however, but
by the end of the play Gerald doesn’t seem to have totally changed his ways.

At the end of Act 3, when it seems possible that the inspector wasn’t a real inspector at all,
Gerald offers Sheila the engagement ring back saying, “Everything’s alright now.” His use of
language suggests that he was more concerned about being caught than about his actual
actions. This is in contrast to Sheila who, even when Inspector Goole is suspected of being a
fake, still feels remorse for her actions.

Mrs. Birling has a similar approach to the situation as her husband; she fails to take any
responsibility for her actions. Eva went to Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation a
desperate, pregnant, penniless woman. We later find out she had an affair with Eric and
become pregnant. In the early 1900s it wasn’t seen as acceptable for unmarried women to
have children so her situation would certainly have been frowned upon. Eva, knowing this
was the case, pretended she was married when asking for help. Since the father of her baby
was Eric she pretended they were married and called herself “Mrs. Birling”, having no idea
that the woman she sought help from was actually his mother, also called Mrs. Birling.

The actual Mrs. Birling assumes Eva knows her name and is rudely copying it. She takes
offence and refuses her help. Her reaction could be compared to that of her daughter, Sheila.
They both take offence to something Eva has done and overreact, making Eva’s terrible
situation even worse. Sheila, uncaring at the time, left her jobless and Mrs. Birling left her
pregnant, alone and penniless.
During the inspector’s interrogation Mrs. Birling refuses to accept any responsibility for her
actions but in doing so she unwittingly accuses her own son, “Go and look for the father of
the child. It’s his responsibility.” Even near the end of the play when she realises she did have
an involvement in the chain of events Mrs. Birling insists, “I did nothing that I’m ashamed
of.”

Mrs. Birling can be likened to her husband in the play. Neither accepts any responsibility for
their actions; neither learns the lesson of social responsibility. By showing them both acting
in this way Priestley highlights the need to focus on educating the younger generation as they
are more “impressionable” and able to change.

Just like his sister Sheila, Eric regrets his involvement with Eva Smith. Unlike Sheila though,
his actions could be considered as more serious as he clearly has a drinking problem, forced
himself on Eva, stole money and got her pregnant.

Eric is forced to admit that when he was drunk he was, “in that state when a chap easily turns
nasty… And that’s when it happened. And I don’t even remember – that’s the hellish thing.”
His lack of detail about exactly what happened suggests that he can barely bring himself to
admit what he’s done. The phrase, “that’s when it happened,” allows us to form our own
conclusions about what exactly went on that night.

Eric continued to see Eva, giving her money stolen from his father’s office when he found
out she was pregnant. Although Eric’s actions could be seen as the most despicable, he also
seems to show the most regret for what happened to her. When the inspector’s identity is
questioned it is clear that Eric understands that it doesn’t matter whether or not they all met
the same girl, or whether or not Inspector Goole is a real inspector, “It’s what happened to the
girl and what we all did to her that matters.” He insists, “You lot may be letting yourselves
out nicely but I can’t. Nor can mother. We did her in all right.” By the end of the play Eric,
like Sheila, has learned the lesson of social responsibility. He and his sister represent the
younger generation who can be educated, take care of one another and therefore help make
society a better place for all to live, no matter their social status.

Society at the time failed to help or support Eva Smith and other girls like her. There was no
D.S.S. or other welfare support. Priestley believed that we should all look after one another;
his message is made clear in Inspector Goole’s final speech. Firstly Goole (and Priestley)
make it clear that Eva was not an isolated case. Eva Smith appears as a symbol for all women
and men who are disadvantaged in society, “One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions
and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives,
their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives.”
The story hasn’t finished with her death; there are other women and men (John Smiths) who
need looking after. It is essential that we all take responsibility for our actions towards others,
including those less fortunate than ourselves. “Smith” is one of the most popular surnames in
Britain so this choice of name again highlights that there are many others out there, just like
Eva, who need to be supported by their employers and other citizens.

This section of the inspector’s final speech is followed by possibly the most important lines
in the play, “We don’t live alone. We are members of one body – we are responsible for each
other.” These effectively sum up Priestley’s overall message.

The final part of the speech contains a warning for those unwilling to accept this lesson of
social responsibility, “the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then
they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.” The words “fire and blood and anguish,”
have at least two possible interpretations. They appear in the Bible and could suggest that if
men and women are unwilling to take responsibility for one another here on earth, then they
will be sent to hell to learn the lesson there (“fire” and “anguish” certainly suggest hell).
Alternatively, the phrase could refer to war since “fire and blood and anguish” are
connotations of war. Priestley, via the inspector, warns both the Birlings and an audience that
if men and women refuse to look after one another, more wars may follow. The play was first
performed just after the two world wars but it was set in 1912, just before World War I. The
Birlings who are from a society where many of the rich were selfish and only concerned with
themselves and their money, would be just about to go through that war. Priestley/The
inspector’s words and warning are therefore highly relevant to both the characters and an
audience.

As the end of the play nears there is a clear divide remaining between the young characters
who are willing to accept responsibility and the older characters who seem unable to change
their selfish ways of thinking. When Gerald suggests that Inspector Goole may not be a real
inspector and a call to the infirmary confirms that no girl has been brought in as a result of
drinking disinfectant, Mr and Mrs. Birling are quick to shed any feeling of guilt. Mr Birling
says “But the whole thing’s different now.” For him and his wife it seems the crucial aspect is
not what you’ve done, it’s whether or not you have been caught. Sheila and Eric react very
differently and are still upset at the end of the play, regardless of whether anyone actually
died or if the inspector was actually real.

Priestley ensures that all audience members realise that the impact of his message by adding
the final phone call at the very end of the play. Finally the Birlings learn that a girl has now
died after drinking disinfectant and is on the way to the infirmary. This suggests that what
Goole said in his final speech was true – that men and women will be forced to learn the
lesson of social responsibility one way or another. It is inescapable.

The message of the play could still be seen as relevant today as there are still those who are
poorly paid for the work they do and there are single mothers struggling to do what’s best for
their children. Even though we do have more charitable organisations to turn to and unions to
represent workers, ultimately some difficulties remain when members of society act in selfish
way or are unwilling to look out for one another. In many ways, Priestley’s message of social
responsibility in ‘An Inspector Calls’ could therefore be said to be as relevant today a when it
was first performed in 1945.
 Sample Essay
How does Priestley present the characters of Mr Birling
and Sheila in ‘An Inspector Calls’?

Mr. Birling is first introduced in the play as a “heavy-looking, rather portentous man in his
middle fifties with fairly easy manners but rather provincial in his speech.” Our immediate
impression of him is as a person who is rather self-centred and confident, a man who is proud
of his standing in society. He frequently reminds everyone of his achievements, “I was Lord
Mayor here two years ago… there’s a very good chance of a knighthood.” Priestley presents
us with little to like about Mr. Birling from the start. The playwright seemingly uses him as a
symbol of the capitalist society which Priestley, being a socialist, was against.

Sheila is Mr. Birling’s daughter who, at the start of the play, has just become engaged to
Gerald Croft. During the early 1900s when the play is set, women were seen chiefly as the
“possession” of their fathers or husbands so they had no legal rights over any money, children
or land. Sheila appear as a symbol of the younger generation of wealthy members of society.
Priestley uses her and her brother Eric to demonstrate that younger people can be taught the
lesson of social responsibility.

At the start of the play we do not see Sheila as responsible for anything. She doesn’t seem to
have a job and she is dependent on her family’s account when she goes shopping.

Just as her father is concerned with accolades and public recognition, so Sheila seems
concerned with her appearance and material goods. Despite getting engaged to Gerald it is
only when he gives her the ring that she says she can really “feel engaged.” Our impression
is of a young, somewhat naïve girl who is rather superficial and certainly unaware of how her
treatment of others could have an effect on their lives. It is not until the inspector points out
her involvement with Eva Smith that Sheila has any recollection of her encounter with her at
Milwards. Similarly, Mr. Birling needs reminding that Eva Smith worked for his company
before he sacked her for campaigning for better wages.

Some tension is raised when, despite agreeing to the engagement, Sheila reveals her concerns
about why she hadn’t seen much of Gerald “last summer, when you never came near me, and
I wondered what had happened to you”. Despite voicing these worries she doesn’t pursue any
questioning until the inspector forces Gerald to admit to his affair. At this point in the play
Sheila doesn’t seem to have the strength of character to challenge him herself. Priestley is
showing how women at the time were generally obedient to the men in their lives.

Mr. Birling is happy about the engagement of his daughter Sheila to Gerald Croft, not
because he believes they love each other and will make each other happy, more because by
marrying Gerald, Sheila will maintain or increase her social status. Gerald is a man whose
parents own an even more successful company than Birling and Co., “Crofts Limited are both
older and bigger than Birling and Company… perhaps we may look forward to the time when
Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for lower costs and
higher prices.” Mr. Birling presents the union almost as a business deal and he makes it clear
that, “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself.” Mr. Birling seems
concerned that he does not have the same kind of family connections that Gerald has; he has
to rely on money he has made rather than that which has been passed on to him. His mention
of a knighthood is significant as this is an award given by others in the community. J.B.
Priestley again seems to be criticising Mr. Birling and his actions as we later find that he does
not support the notion of community at all.

At the start of the play Mr. Birling makes his views on the idea of social responsibility
perfectly clear, however his views on this and his opinion of “community and all that
nonsense” are comments which are perfectly timed. Just before this statement he makes other
rash claims such as, “The Germans don’t want war,” and “the Titanic… absolutely
unsinkable.” By making these comments the audience, even at the first performance, know
that not only did the Germans play a key part in World War II but the Titanic also sank.
Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony here means Birling’s opinions are instantly
devalued. Priestley’s clever structure means that when Birling follows this up with
“community and all that nonsense” we, the audience, may believe that he is continuing to talk
rubbish. Priestley effectively uses this structure to encourage the audience to agree with his
own socialist views that community is, in fact, far from “nonsense”!

Mr. Birling sacked Eva Smith because she demanded a higher (and probably fairer) wage and
went on strike, “She’d had a lot to say – far too much – so she had to go.” He saw her as one
of the leaders of the strike action and rather than consider her personal circumstances or what
she was contributing to the business, it would seem from his use of language that Birling
sacked her with little thought. This was despite him admitting that she was a hard worker.
The play is set at a time when many workers were going on strike for better pay and
conditions. Mr. Birling’s lack of regret over his actions means that it is hard to sympathise
with him. He frequently tries to exert his authority over Inspector Goole by reminding him of
the positions he has held in society but it never has an effect. Eventually the inspector makes
it clear that, “Public men… have responsibilities as well as privileges.”

The inspector can be seen as the voice of Priestley. He effectively highlights the Birlings’
shortcomings and poor attitudes as the play progresses. His aim appears to be to deliver a
message to the audience that we should all take responsibility for our actions to ensure a
better society for all of us, regardless of our gender or social class. His effect on Mr. Birling
and Sheila certainly differs.

Following Mr. Birling’s interrogation, Sheila is next to be questioned by the inspector. As her
connection to Eva is revealed, Sheila appears to be quite a selfish and jealous character. She
was said to be shopping at Milwards when she first met Eva. Sheila believed Eva looked
better than herself when they both tried on a dress. Her jealousy led to her using her influence
as a valued customer to have Eva sacked, “I told him that if they didn’t get rid of that girl, I’d
never go near the place again and I’d persuade mother to close our account with them.”

In a similar way to Sheila being concerned with owning and wearing an engagement ring to
“feel engaged,” so she was concerned that a mere shop assistant looked better in a dress than
she did and reacted in a strong enough way to have that assistant fired. At the time of meeting
Eva, Sheila clearly took no responsibility for her actions, but as she realises the enormity of
the situation she does become very distressed; the stage directions say how she looks, “as if
she’s been crying.” Sheila clearly regrets her actions, “I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m
ashamed of it.” Priestley uses her to demonstrate that young people can learn the lesson of
social responsibility. There is therefore hope for the future of society if we can make them
realise the need to look after others they come into contact with, even if those other people
are of a lower social status than themselves.

Sheila can be seen as a product of her environment. Being brought up in a wealthy family in
Edwardian England would mean it is likely that she has had to take little responsibility for her
actions until this point. She seems to grow in confidence as the play progresses and by the
end even stands up to her mother, telling her to stop before it’s “too late.” She also refuses to
take back the engagement ring when she finds out Gerald has cheated on her saying, “it’s too
soon.” This shows her increased strength and ability to make morally sound decisions on her
own, rather than being dominated by the men in her life.

Mr. Birling, however, does not show the same morals and capability to learn the lesson of
social responsibility. Priestley uses him to represent the older generation who are more
inclined to be set in their ways. Mr. Birling does not admit that he was in any way to blame
for the death of Eva Smith and, even after other characters such as Sheila and Eric have
broken down and clearly been sorry for their actions, Mr. Birling insists, “I can’t accept any
responsibility.” He fails to learn the inspector (and Priestley’s) lesson of social responsibility
which supports the idea that it is the younger members of society who need to be educated
and encouraged to look out for one another if society is to become a better place. Mr. Birling
(unlike Sheila) believes that if Inspector Goole isn’t a real inspector, or if a girl didn’t die
then he and his family have nothing to feel guilty for, “But the whole thing’s different now.”
Priestley suggests that it is not whether or not you are caught doing something wrong, it is
whether you did anything wrong or cruel in the first place that matters. We should all take
responsibility for our actions, no matter what the circumstances are and no matter our
standing in society.

Overall Mr. Birling could be seen as a caricature of a typical capitalist businessman of the
time, heartless and ruthless, concerned only with himself and his wealth. We, the audience,
are likely to find it hard to sympathise with his opinions so when he makes comments at the
end of the play about the Inspector being “a Socialist or some sort of crank,” we are again
likely to think that he is talking nonsense, so Priestley suggests we should feel that Socialists
(such as himself) are actually to be respected and valued, certainly not cranks! Sheila (and her
brother Eric) accepting responsibility for their actions effectively shows the audience that
there is hope for the future; if we educate young people then they can learn to take
responsibility for each other and make for a better society for everyone to live in.

Through his use of the inspector, Priestley suggests that nobody will fully escape the lesson
of social responsibility, not even Mr. Birling. In his final speech Inspector Goole states that,
“the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in
fire and blood and anguish.” The words “fire and blood and anguish,” appear in the Bible and
could suggest that if men and women are unwilling to take responsibility for one another here
on earth then they will be sent to hell to learn the lesson there. Alternatively the phrase could
refer to war, since “fire and blood and anguish” have connotations of war. Priestley, via the
inspector warns both the Birlings and the audience that if men and women refuse to look after
one another, more wars may follow. Although the play was first performed just after the two
world wars, it was set in 1912, just before World War I. The Birlings who are from a society
where many of the rich were selfish and only concerned with themselves and their money,
would be just about to go through that war. An audience at the time would have just
experienced World War 2 so the message of responsibility is highly relevant to an audience
as well as the characters themselves.

The final phone call also ensures that all of the Birlings, including the seemingly unshakeable
Mr. Birling, will be forced to learn the lesson of social responsibility. Despite their earlier
hopes that Inspector Goole wasn’t a real inspector and a girl hadn’t really committed suicide,
this final phone call informs the Birlings that a girl has now died after drinking disinfectant
and is on the way to the infirmary. This suggests that what the inspector said in his final
speech was true – that men and women (including Mr. Birling) will all be forced to learn the
lesson of social responsibility one way or another. It is inescapable.

The audience are likely to leave with the view that even if you try to ignore your
responsibilities, just as Mr Birling did, your actions will eventually be punished. Sheila (and
her brother Eric) accepting responsibility for their actions effectively shows the audience that
there is hope for the future; if we educate young people then they can learn to take
responsibility for each other and make for a better society for everyone to live in.
Key Quotes
 Quick Quiz – Act One – The Answers!

1. What are the Birling family celebrating at the very start of the play?

Sheila Birling’s engagement to Gerald Croft.

2. Why is Mr. Birling happy about his daughter’s situation?

He thinks the match would be good for business!

3. Which two claims does Mr. Birling make about historical events which the
audience would know was untrue?
He said the Titanic was “unsinkable,” the audience would know that it did sink on its
maiden voyage. He also says the “Germans don’t want war” and the audience know
that the play is set just prior to the war so this is also untrue.

4. Which word describes Mrs. Birling early in the play?

“Cold.”

5. How is the inspector’s arrival announced?

With a “sharp ring” of the doorbell.

6. How does the inspector say Eva Smith committed suicide?

By drinking disinfectant which “burnt her inside out.”

7. How did Mr. Birling meet Eva Smith?

She was an employee in his factory.

8. Where does Sheila meet Eva?

At Milwards Department Store – Sheila was shopping and Eva was an employee.

9. Which item of clothing looked better on Eva than on Sheila?

A dress.

10. What does Eva change her name to after being sacked from Milwards, according
to the Inspector?

Daisy Renton.
 Quick Quiz - Act Two – The Answers!

1. Which character does the inspector start questioning at the start of Act Two?

Gerald.

2. Where did Gerald first meet Eva/Daisy?

The bar in the Palace Variety Theatre.

3. Why did Eva/Daisy end up leaving Brumley? Where did she go?

To the seaside, to get over the failed relationship with Gerald.

4. Where did Mrs. Birling meet Eva/Daisy?

At the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation.

5. What did Eva/Daisy call herself when she first met Mrs. Birling?

She called herself “Mrs. Birling”!

6. Mrs. Birling thought she was just being rude but why did Eva/Daisy give herself
the name “Mrs. Birling” when she went to the organisation for help?

She pretended she was married to Eric Birling whom she’d had a relationship with
and become pregnant by.

7. Does Mrs. Birling accept responsibility for her actions?

 No!

8. Whom does Mrs. Birling blame for the death of Eva Smith?

Eric, her own son (before realising he was the father of Eva’s child).

9. Which award does Mr. Birling think he is due to receive? (He therefore doesn’t
want any negative attention from the press.)

A knighthood.

10. Why didn’t Eva take the money she’d been offered by the father of her baby?

She realised it had been stolen (showing her good morals, in even a time of extreme
difficulty.)
 Quick Quiz – Act Three – The Answers!

1. Who is the final character to be questioned by the inspector?

Eric Birling.

2. What does Eric call his sister, Sheila, when she talks of his drinking habit?

A “sneak.”

3. Where did Eric meet Eva/Daisy?

In the Palace Theatre bar – the same as Gerald.

4. Eva had a relationship with Eric and became pregnant by him but why didn’t
she want to marry him?

She knew he didn’t love her.

5. How much money did Eric give Eva? Where did it come from?

About 50 pounds, from his father’s office.

6. How does Eric describe the relationship with his father?

He says Mr. Birling was “not a kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in
trouble.”

7. Whom does Eric blame for Eva’s death?

 His mother, Mrs. Birling. He says, “you turned her away – yes, and you killed her.”

8. Which two characters appear particularly distressed by their involvement in the

chain of events?

Eric and Sheila.

9. Who rings the Chief Constable to confirm Gerald’s suspicions that Inspector
Goole isn’t a real inspector?

Mr. Birling.

10. What information is contained in the final phone call at the very end of the play?

That a girl has died after swallowing disinfectant and an inspector is on his way to
question the Birlings.