Mrs birling eva play charity gerald priestley complete

Text	The Inspector and Mrs Birling It soon transpires that Mrs Birling chaired the Brumley Women’s Charity and Eva sought help from her. At this point in the play it is revealed that Eva was pregnant when she committed suicide and she asked for help from the charity in order that she might better look after the child. One reason that Mrs Birling denied the request of help, aside from her class prejudice, was that Eva used the name Birling, which Mrs Birling describes as a ‘damned impudence’. Mrs Birling also explains that she refused to help her because ‘she wasn’t married’ (44), which would have been especially frowned upon in Edwardian society. Thus, instead of helping her Mrs Birling casts her aside. There is an interesting parallel here to Gerald who, unlike Mrs Birling, ‘sets her up’. Yet, Priestley seems to suggest both act without care for Eva, seeing her as disposable and someone able to be discarded What is especially interesting about Mrs Birling is the complete lack of emotion she has for Eva: ‘I did nothing I’m ashamed for […] I used my influence to have it refused. And in spite of what happened to the girl since, I consider I did my duty’. Again, Priestley’s use of ‘duty’ in this context would have been especially jarring for a post-war audience: the conception of duty that Mr and Mrs Birling have is eternally different from the conception of duty that Priestly seeks to cultivate. Furthermore, it comes to light that the reason Eva needed help in the first place is because the person who had previously been helping her (the father of the baby) had been stealing money and Eva did not want to be involved in this. Yet, because her view is tainted by class prejudice Mrs Birling does not believe her: ‘As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!’. Even more perverse is that Mrs Birling, by her own admission, uses her ‘influence’ to turn the committee against Eva. It was not the case she was passive in her refusal, but, one assumes, actively sought to persuade others to reject Eva’s appeals. This is a cruel perversion of the kind of communal society Priestley envisages where we are all ‘members of one body’. Likewise, Priestley’s evocation of ‘influence’, similar to Sheila leveraging her influence to have Eva fired, underlines the way in which influence wielded by the wrong people can lead to a disastrous outcome. Better, perhaps, Priestley is suggesting, not to have such power in the hands of prejudiced individuals, but rather an accountable government. Birling, perhaps more so than the other characters, represents a complete abdication of responsibility and a complete lack of remorse: she utterly abused her position of power. Contrast, for instance, Mrs Birling’s cold reaction to Eva’s death with Sheila’s now sickened reaction: ‘No! Oh – how horrible – horrible’ (45). The short syntax and fragmentary speech mimics her now disjointed frame of mind and she comes to realise what has taken place. This section of the play also functions as a social commentary on the efficacy of charitable bodies. In the Edwardian Period if a person needed help they would typically go to a charity and rely on the ‘kindness of strangers’. However, the Welfare State saw to put an end to this. Thus, the play might be seen as an attempt to justify the introduction of the Welfare State by denigrating the previous system of charity, teasing out its many flaws. In a manner far more pernicious and cruel than ether Sheila or Mr Birling, we see in Gerald and Mrs Birling a willing and unashamed capacity to wield power over another person and to treat them as utterly disposable. Eva suffered at the hands of both and neither, one feels, have learnt their lesson. The challenge, indeed moral injunction, that the play presents to its audience, whether now or 70 years ago, is to ensure we do not follow in the footsteps of Gerald or Mrs Birling.

Text

The Inspector and Mrs Birling

It soon transpires that Mrs Birling chaired the Brumley Women’s Charity and Eva sought help from her.
At this point in the play it is revealed that Eva was pregnant when she committed suicide and she asked for help from the charity in order that she might better look after the child.
One reason that Mrs Birling denied the request of help, aside from her class prejudice, was that Eva used the name Birling, which Mrs Birling describes as a ‘damned impudence’.
Mrs Birling also explains that she refused to help her because ‘she wasn’t married’ (44), which would have been especially frowned upon in Edwardian society.
Thus, instead of helping her Mrs Birling casts her aside. There is an interesting parallel here to Gerald who, unlike Mrs Birling, ‘sets her up’. Yet, Priestley seems to suggest both act without care for Eva, seeing her as disposable and someone able to be discarded
What is especially interesting about Mrs Birling is the complete lack of emotion she has for Eva: ‘I did nothing I’m ashamed for […] I used my influence to have it refused. And in spite of what happened to the girl since, I consider I did my duty’.
Again, Priestley’s use of ‘duty’ in this context would have been especially jarring for a post-war audience: the conception of duty that Mr and Mrs Birling have is eternally different from the conception of duty that Priestly seeks to cultivate.
Furthermore, it comes to light that the reason Eva needed help in the first place is because the person who had previously been helping her (the father of the baby) had been stealing money and Eva did not want to be involved in this.
Yet, because her view is tainted by class prejudice Mrs Birling does not believe her: ‘As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!’.
Even more perverse is that Mrs Birling, by her own admission, uses her ‘influence’ to turn the committee against Eva. It was not the case she was passive in her refusal, but, one assumes, actively sought to persuade others to reject Eva’s appeals. This is a cruel perversion of the kind of communal society Priestley envisages where we are all ‘members of one body’.
Likewise, Priestley’s evocation of ‘influence’, similar to Sheila leveraging her influence to have Eva fired, underlines the way in which influence wielded by the wrong people can lead to a disastrous outcome. Better, perhaps, Priestley is suggesting, not to have such power in the hands of prejudiced individuals, but rather an accountable government.
Birling, perhaps more so than the other characters, represents a complete abdication of responsibility and a complete lack of remorse: she utterly abused her position of power.
Contrast, for instance, Mrs Birling’s cold reaction to Eva’s death with Sheila’s now sickened reaction: ‘No! Oh – how horrible – horrible’ (45). The short syntax and fragmentary speech mimics her now disjointed frame of mind and she comes to realise what has taken place.
This section of the play also functions as a social commentary on the efficacy of charitable bodies. In the Edwardian Period if a person needed help they would typically go to a charity and rely on the ‘kindness of strangers’. However, the Welfare State saw to put an end to this. Thus, the play might be seen as an attempt to justify the introduction of the Welfare State by denigrating the previous system of charity, teasing out its many flaws.

In a manner far more pernicious and cruel than ether Sheila or Mr Birling, we see in Gerald and Mrs Birling a willing and unashamed capacity to wield power over another person and to treat them as utterly disposable. Eva suffered at the hands of both and neither, one feels, have learnt their lesson.
The challenge, indeed moral injunction, that the play presents to its audience, whether now or 70 years ago, is to ensure we do not follow in the footsteps of Gerald or Mrs Birling.

Learn with these flashcards. Click next, previous, or up to navigate to more flashcards for this subject.