The Inspector's Role
Who Is Inspector Goole?
Inspector Goole is the most enigmatic character in English GCSE drama. He arrives at the Birling house unannounced, conducts an investigation that dismantles the family's self-image, delivers a speech advocating collective responsibility, and then vanishes. When the family checks, they discover there is no Inspector Goole on the police force. His name — "Goole" — echoes ghoul, suggesting a supernatural presence. Priestley deliberately leaves the Inspector's true identity ambiguous: he could be a ghost, a time traveller, the voice of God, the embodiment of collective conscience, or simply a man who knew too much. The ambiguity is not a weakness in the play — it is the point.
Priestley's purpose in leaving the Inspector's identity unresolved is to redirect the audience's attention from the question "Was he real?" to the question that actually matters: "Were the Birlings' actions real?" As Sheila says: "it doesn't make any real difference, y'know." The Inspector's identity is a red herring. His message — "We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other" — is true regardless of who delivered it. By making the Inspector ambiguous, Priestley argues that moral truth transcends individual authority.
The Inspector's ambiguous identity serves Priestley's argument: moral truth is independent of who delivers it. Whether Goole is a real inspector, a ghost, or a divine messenger, the Birlings still exploited Eva Smith. The audience should focus on the message, not the messenger — and so should the Birlings.
Priestley's Socialist Mouthpiece
The Inspector functions as Priestley's direct mouthpiece — the voice through which the playwright speaks to the audience. This is most explicit in the Inspector's final speech: "We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you 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." Every phrase carries political weight.
"We don't live alone" directly contradicts Birling's philosophy that "a man has to mind his own business." "Members of one body" uses an organic metaphor — society as a living organism where each part depends on the others — drawn from Christian theology and socialist thought. "Fire and blood and anguish" carries biblical resonance: it echoes the language of Old Testament prophets warning of God's punishment for injustice. For the 1945 audience, it also referred directly to the two World Wars they had survived. Priestley is saying: these wars were the "fire and blood" caused by the selfish capitalism represented by Birling. Learn the lesson or it happens again.
Just as Eva Smith is an everywoman figure (representing all exploited workers), the Inspector can be read as an everyman figure — a representative of universal moral accountability. In medieval morality plays, the "everyman" character represented the human soul being judged. Priestley's Inspector performs a similar function: he judges the Birlings, finds them morally wanting, and delivers a verdict. The difference is that in a morality play, the judgement is divine; in Priestley's play, it is political — the judgement of history and of the audience.
The Inspector's connection to the morality play tradition strengthens his supernatural quality. He speaks with a certainty that no ordinary police officer would possess. He knows things before they are revealed. He seems to control time itself — arriving at the exact moment Birling finishes his capitalist speech, as if the moral universe summoned him. Whether or not Priestley intended a direct morality play reference, the Inspector's function — as judge, prophet, and conscience — draws on centuries of dramatic tradition.
The Inspector's Methods
The Inspector's interrogation technique is as revealing as his identity. He insists on "one line of enquiry at a time" — questioning each family member separately and in order. This method serves Priestley's structural purpose: each character's story builds on the previous one, creating a chain of exploitation that leads inexorably to Eva's death. The Inspector controls the narrative. He decides who speaks when, what information is revealed, and how the story unfolds.
He also refuses to be intimidated by social status. When Birling demands an apology and protests "I'm a public man", the Inspector responds: "Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges." This line is a compressed version of the play's entire argument. "Responsibilities as well as privileges" uses balanced syntax to insist that power must come with duty. Birling sees his status as entitling him to deference; the Inspector sees it as creating an obligation to others.
The Inspector's "one line of enquiry at a time" creates a chain-of-events structure where each character's guilt builds on the last. He controls information, refuses intimidation, and uses moral authority rather than institutional power. His method transforms the dining room into a moral courtroom where no one can deflect blame.
The Inspector's Language
Priestley gives the Inspector a distinctive linguistic register that sets him apart from every other character. He speaks "carefully, weightily" with "a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addresses before actually speaking." His language is measured, authoritative, and impossible to argue with. When he describes Eva's death — "she'd swallowed a lot of strong disinfectant. Burnt her inside out, of course" — the blunt, clinical detail forces the family (and the audience) to confront the physical reality of what their actions caused.
The Inspector also uses repetition to build his argument. "Millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths" — the triple repetition expands Eva from one woman to the entire working class. His language becomes increasingly prophetic as the play progresses, moving from the factual tone of a police investigation to the elevated register of a sermon or political speech. By the final speech, the Inspector is no longer interrogating — he is preaching. And his congregation is not just the Birlings, but the audience.
The Inspector's departure is as carefully staged as his arrival. He delivers his final speech, then simply leaves. Priestley does not give him a dramatic exit — no confrontation, no last look. He states his message and goes, leaving the family to decide what to do with it. This restraint is powerful: the Inspector does not force change. He offers a moral choice. The family must decide for themselves whether to accept or reject the lesson.
After he leaves, the family's response becomes the play's true test. The older generation immediately tries to undermine his message by disproving his identity. The younger generation insists the message stands regardless. Priestley positions the audience as a third party: like the Birlings, they have heard the Inspector's argument. Unlike the Birlings, they have the benefit of historical hindsight. The play's final question is directed at the audience: will you choose to learn, or will you need to be taught "in fire and blood and anguish"?