was an equal; he doesn’t grovel and be overly respectful, as Mr. Birling would expect. At one point the Inspector questions Mr. Birling very directly, saying simply ‘Why?’ Mr. Birling is very surprised at this very insolent way of conducting an investigation, he replies somewhat bewildered ‘Did you say why?’ He obviously doesn’t think this is the way to act towards a man who used to be Lord Mayor. The Inspector doesn’t seem to react to this, though he most certainly knows and understands Mr. Birling’s view and thoughts, he simply chooses to ignore them. This shows that the inspector’s character is used as the author’s voice because J.B Priestley’s views on Socialism surprisingly mimic the Inspector’s. These views may not shock us now but his audience would have thought he had quite radical views.
After Mr. Birling, Sheila is questioned. She starts off being slightly naïve asking ‘was it an accident?’ when the Inspector tells her of Eva’s death. She does change nevertheless, she becomes argumentative with her father and downright mean to Gerald, and in the end she is more mature. She seems to share the Inspector’s views but only when she is forced to have an opinion. At the end of the play however she seems to whole-heartily agree with the Inspector and he seems to have the greatest impact on her, perhaps because she is the happiest and looses the most. He extracts the truth from her with ease; he simply shows her a photograph. The whole story is told and Sheila regrets her part in it and begins to feel very guilty and remorseful. The Inspector isn’t too harsh on her, and she opens up to him. This shows how the Inspector is used as a conscience for the character of Shelia. By now we start to get the impression that the Inspector is not normal. He has made an impression on Shelia, “we often do on the young ones. They’re more impressionable”, as she is feeling solely responsible for Eva smith’s death; however he has had no such luck on Mr. Birling. At this point the Inspector says, “You see, we have to share something. If there’s nothing else, we’ll have to share our guilt”. Here the Author expresses his opinions again through the character of Inspector Goole; he uses him like a tool to voice his thoughts.
Gerald is interrogated next and until then is quiet. He gives himself away when the Inspector mentions the name Daisy Renton, but unlike Sheila he is not willing to talk. The Inspector has to pressurise him into telling the truth. He does though and we find out about his affair, he seems genuinely upset and repentant for his actions towards Daisy/Eva and Sheila. He is very truthful and it looks as if the Inspector is getting through to him and making him see the consequences his actions have. Gerald does seem suspicious of the Inspector and we begin to as well, he asks ‘How do you know that?’ when the Inspector tells of Eva’s actions after the affair ended. This again shows his supernatural quality knowing little details about the characters that a normal person would not know.
Mrs Birling comes after Gerald for the questioning by the Inspector. She swans into the room and tries to put the Inspector in his “place” as she sees it. She tells the Inspector he ‘is a trifle impertinent’ and she tries to keep him as downtrodden as possible, his reaction to this is to be harsh with her and he certainly doesn’t spare her feelings. He knows she’s hiding something and he wants to moralise her actions and show her a different opinion on life that she does not see. She doesn’t like this and becomes angry with him for judging her, but in the end she tells him all about her part in the story. Inspector Goole’s ghost-like quality shines through again because he knew she had something to hide he just had to get her to admit it. She feels no remorse and really doesn’t except any blame even though the Inspector tries to make her see she could have acted differently. Instead she blames the father of the child Eva was pregnant with, ‘It’s his responsibility’ she says, showing that she doesn’t think it was hers at all. The Inspector replies ‘That doesn’t make it any less yours.’ She does not see this point of view and feels she was quite justified in refusing Eva Smith money. She doesn’t change at all but she does learn some things about her family. In the end though she forms the same conclusion as her husband- as long as it doesn’t get out, there’s no reason to change your ways. This may be another of the author’s views, which he uses the Inspector to highlight.
Eric is the last to be questioned. He enters at a time of great tension and the Inspector is becoming more hurried and less polite, to Mr Birling he says ‘Don’t start on that. I want to get on’ he doesn’t waste time on respectfulness because there is no reason to. He knows that Mr. Birling could get him fired in an instant as he is of a higher class than the Inspector. This makes us think that the Inspector is going out on a limb or there is something strange about this Inspector Goole. He knows all the family’s secrets and he gets angry with them. For their part, the family is a very different one to the one that sat down to dinner; he has changed them as a whole. Eric tells us his part and he seems so upset and regretful that we feel sorry for him. He is so immature and the Inspector knows this, he also knows that he has changed Eric and made him see the error of his ways. Eric knows what he did was wrong but also becomes more confident and not so apologetic to his father, he feels guiltier for the part he played in Eva's death than for the fact he stole money off his father. Eric has grown up and shown character development through the use of Inspector Goole as an embodiment of conscience.
In the Inspector’s final speech he talks about many of the issues that occur in the play. He talks of the way you can’t try and make things better, Mr Birling says ‘…I’d give thousands-yes thousands’ but the Inspector shows him it’s too late and when someone has gone you can’t ever make a difference to them. He makes a point to all of them and he acts as a conscience, not as someone to ease the guilt. He tries to make them see, once and for all, that you can’t regret actions after they’re done, you have to think about the consequences and the effect on others beforehand. He says it to Sheila, Gerald, Mrs Birling, Eric and Mr Birling- ‘Think of what you have done.’ He also wants them to think of a whole body of people, not just Eva Smith, ‘there are millions and millions and millions of John Smiths and Eva Smiths still left with us.’ He wants them to think about, maybe for the first time, others below them socially because they are important people just like them. He mentions working class people at the beginning of the play and he emphasises the importance of looking after one another again and again, it is central to the function of the inspector. This again shows the Author’s opinions on socialism. He doesn’t care about honours and titles and social standing, in his eyes everyone is equal and if they aren’t treated as such, men ‘Will be taught in fire and blood and anguish’ This is a reference to the World Wars. He wants to teach them a lesson and has been trying to do so since he arrived, to change views and prejudices is the main function of the Inspector which he does through acting as their conscience.
Whoever or whatever he is isn’t really important, although it does add dramatic effect and tension to the play. The real reason Priestly created the Inspector was not to judge the characters in the play, but to make them change their ways that views like Mr Birling’s can be dangerous. He is the little voice within every one of us, the conscience and the reason and the compassion we all have. He brings new concepts to the family and certainly Eric and Sheila learn about social responsibility and the moral thing to do. He teaches that people can’t and shouldn’t live their lives without thinking and caring about one another; they should look hard at themselves and think about what they say and do. He has an independent point of view and this was needed, he may not have been truthful about his identity but he was a great ‘tool’ for Priestly to show us we never know where our consequences might lead, we certainly see this at the end of the play. As Sheila said ‘He inspected us all right’ and he unquestionably did.