An Inspector Calls (Grades 9–1) York Notes

Priestley explores ideas about justice by showing how the fate of the poorly paid Eva Smith is in the hands of the wealthy Birlings and the aristocratic Gerald Croft. They make a series of choices, creating a ‘chain of events’ that leads to her downfall. Inspector Goole is Priestley’s mouthpiece and Priestley gives him a commanding voice as the Inspector interrogates each of the characters in turn.

The chain of events is the structure in which Priestley lays out his ideas and it begins when Mr Birling sacks Eva Smith for demanding more pay for her job at his factory. Mr Birling’s belief is that a man ‘has to look after himself – and his family’ only. In this way, Priestley shows how employers like Birling feel no obligation to the wider community and so do not give their workers fair wages.

By contrast Sheila Birling objects to her father’s attitude. She does not see employees like Eva Smith as ‘cheap labour’, but emphasises their humanity by referring to them as ‘people’. However, Priestley also makes Sheila a complicated character. Ironically, her unjust complaint at Milwards store leads to Eva Smith losing her job; the last regular job she has. When Sheila recognises her own link in the chain, she is horrified. The Inspector’s words impact on her as she realises that there are wider ideas of justice, since there are ‘millions … of Eva Smiths’ in society and that our lives are all ‘intertwined’.

Priestley shows that Gerald, Sheila’s fiancé, also has some sense of justice. When he meets Eva Smith (as Daisy Renton) in the Palace Theatre bar, he rescues her from the hands of the lecherous Alderman Meggarty who ‘had wedged her into a corner’. The verb ‘wedged’ and the noun ‘corner’ illustrate her helplessness. Nonetheless, Gerald has a hand in Eva’s downfall too, because he ends his affair with her when it suits him. His deception is also unfair to Sheila.

Eric’s encounter with Eva Smith is less gentlemanly. When drunk he ‘easily turns nasty’ and on the second meeting he doesn’t even, ‘remember her name’, creating the impression that he is thoroughly irresponsible. Although he tries to do the right thing when Eva becomes pregnant, he only makes his bad behaviour worse. He steals from his father’s firm and gives Eva the stolen money. When she discovers where it came from, she declines ‘to take anymore.’ Consequently, Priestley demonstrates that Eva, who knows right from wrong, is a just, moral person, while Eric is not. But Eric is very upset by Eva’s death. Like Sheila, he is affected by the Inspector’s warning that if the unfairness carries on it will end in ‘fire and blood and anguish’, a striking metaphor that reminds us of hellfire in the Christian religion.

Unlike Eric, Mrs Birling undergoes no change of heart and considers she did her ‘duty’ by Eva Smith. Her actions are the final link in the chain when she refuses Eva charity from the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation. Mrs Birling’s lack of sympathy – Priestley uses the adjective ‘cold’ to describe her – and her failure to understand Eva’s position ensures Eva sinks further still, and ends by taking her own life. Priestley also explores the lack of justice (as well as irony) when Mrs Birling unwittingly helps to bring to an end her own potential grandchild; the baby Eva Smith is carrying.

Neither Mr nor Mrs Birling feels any sense of responsibility (another theme in the play connected to justice) for Eva Smith. Gerald, while he truly regrets his part in her death, is still hard-headed enough to find out if an Eva Smith actually committed suicide when the Inspector’s authenticity is doubted. Only Sheila and Eric take on the full impact of the Inspector’s words. They feel responsibility for what happened to Eva Smith and accept that a change in society is needed. Priestley, therefore, suggests that any hope for future justice can only be with the young.