Act 2: Gerald & Mrs Birling Exposed
Gerald Croft and Daisy Renton
Act 2 begins with the Inspector turning his attention to Gerald Croft. Gerald met Eva Smith — now using the name Daisy Renton — at the Palace Bar, a venue associated with prostitution. He describes her as “very pretty” and “young and fresh and charming.” Gerald rescued her from Alderman Meggarty, a local politician who was harassing her, and set her up in a friend’s flat as his mistress.
Gerald insists the relationship was genuine: “I didn’t feel about her as she felt about me.” But his language reveals uncomfortable truths. He calls her a “pretty girl” repeatedly, and his actions — providing a flat, money, and companionship only when convenient — follow the pattern of a wealthy man keeping a working-class woman as a convenient possession. When he ended the affair, Eva/Daisy “was very gallant — about it” and “didn’t blame” him. Priestley shows that even when upper-class men appear kind, the class power imbalance makes genuine equality impossible.
Gerald’s relationship with Daisy Renton exposes the class power imbalance at the heart of Edwardian gender relations. He provided her with a flat, money, and affection — but always on his terms. When he was done, he walked away unscathed while Eva was left with nothing. Priestley uses Gerald to show that even apparent kindness can be a form of exploitation when one person holds all the power.
The Palace Bar and Alderman Meggarty
The Palace Bar is a significant setting. It was a place where wealthy men met young working-class women, often for sexual exploitation. Gerald admits he “went in there — one night — after a rather long, dull day” and saw Meggarty “wedging” Daisy into a corner. Gerald’s rescue seems noble on the surface, but Priestley complicates it: Gerald replaces one form of male exploitation with another. Meggarty harasses; Gerald possesses. Both men treat Daisy as an object to be used by men of higher status.
Alderman Meggarty is a councillor — a public figure who is supposed to serve the community. His behaviour at the Palace Bar reveals the hypocrisy of the Edwardian establishment: men who present themselves as respectable pillars of society are privately predatory. This connects to the Inspector’s warning that “Public men have responsibilities as well as privileges.”
Gerald occupies a middle ground between the older and younger Birlings. Unlike Arthur and Sybil, he is genuinely moved by Eva’s death and shows some emotional response: “She was young and pretty and warm-hearted — and intensely grateful.” But unlike Sheila and Eric, he quickly recovers. By Act 3, it is Gerald who investigates whether the Inspector was real and leads the effort to prove the evening was a hoax. He asks: “How do we know she was really Eva Smith or Daisy Renton?”
This makes Gerald a troubling character. His moment of genuine feeling is overwhelmed by his desire to restore the status quo. Priestley uses him to suggest that sympathy without lasting change is not enough. Gerald is sorry, but he will not alter his behaviour or challenge the system that allowed the exploitation. He represents the audience member who feels bad but does nothing.
Mrs Birling’s Refusal: The Charity Committee
The most devastating section of Act 2 belongs to Mrs Birling (Sybil). Eva, now desperate and pregnant, applied to the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation for help. Mrs Birling, as chair of the committee, used her influence to have Eva’s case rejected. Her reasons reveal breathtaking class prejudice: Eva had used the name “Mrs Birling,” which Sybil called “a piece of gross impertinence”; Sybil disliked her manner and thought her fine feelings “simply absurd in a girl in her position”; and Eva refused to take money from the baby’s father because it was stolen — a scruple that Mrs Birling interprets as evidence of dishonesty rather than integrity.
Mrs Birling insists that the real responsibility lies with “the father of the child” and that he should be made an example of, publicly shamed, and “dealt with very severely.” This is one of Priestley’s most powerful uses of dramatic irony. The audience — and Sheila, who has already guessed — realise that the father is Eric Birling. Mrs Birling is unknowingly demanding that her own son be publicly humiliated.
Mrs Birling’s insistence that the father should “be made an example of” and “confess in public” is the play’s most explosive dramatic irony. She does not know that the father is her own son Eric. Sheila’s frantic attempts to stop her mother — “Mother — stop — stop!” — heighten the tension. Priestley traps Mrs Birling with her own words: she has just argued for the harshest possible punishment of her own child.
Sheila’s Growing Awareness
Sheila grows more perceptive as the evening goes on. Her warning to Gerald at the very end of Act 1 — “You fool — he knows. Of course he knows.” — shows that she recognises before anyone else that the Inspector cannot be deflected or deceived. When her mother begins to condemn the father of Eva’s child, Sheila tries desperately to stop her: “Mother — I begged you and begged you to stop.” Sheila’s intelligence and moral awareness separate her from the older generation.
Her engagement ring is a powerful symbol in Act 2. Sheila hands it back to Gerald after learning about Daisy Renton. This is not just a personal decision — it represents Sheila’s rejection of the comfortable, unquestioning life she was expected to lead. The ring symbolised the Birling-Croft business alliance as much as love; by returning it, Sheila steps outside the transactional world her father built. Priestley uses her to model the response he wants from his audience: face uncomfortable truths, accept responsibility, and change.
Mrs Birling’s language is formal, controlled, and dismissive. She refers to Eva as “girls of that class.” She says Eva was “giving herself ridiculous airs” and claiming “elaborate fine feelings and scruples”, and that she was “not satisfied” with the girl’s claim. The coldness is deliberate: Mrs Birling speaks in the language of institutional authority, not human compassion. She uses her position on the charity to gatekeep who deserves help, applying moral judgements that protect the upper class and punish the vulnerable.
Unlike Birling, whose bluster occasionally reveals anxiety, Mrs Birling never wavers. She is the play’s most unchanging character. Even after the Inspector’s speech, she insists: “I was the only one of you who didn’t give in to him.” Priestley presents her as the ultimate failure of the upper class: someone who cannot even imagine that a working-class woman deserves sympathy. She is the static character against whom Sheila and Eric’s growth is measured.