“The institution of the dictator comes from ancient Rome, from the classical Republic of antiquity. (Laughter.) When the State was fighting for its existence it was found necessary to place supreme power in the hands of a single man, and to give this Roman dictator authority which was much greater than the authority belonging to preventive arrest and martial law.  The whole development proceeds by way of compromise between the needs of the State and the needs of protection for the individual.  The results vary according to the particular level of civilisation reached by the particular State. (Socialist cries of ‘Very true.’) We are not at the lowest level.  When one considers the state of things in Germany in peace time we can be proud. (Socialist interruptions.) I am proud of Germany.  I think that our constitutional system before the outbreak of war and our level of Kultur were such as every German could be proud of. (’No, no.’) I hope that we shall soon be able to revert to those conditions.”

Herr Helfferich went on to argue that repression in Germany is really much milder than in France, England, or Italy; and for the debate on the censorship, which followed the debate on preventive arrest, he came armed with an account of the Defence of the Realm Acts.  When he enlarged upon the powers of the British Government he was interrupted by cries of “It is a question not of theory but of practice,” and the Socialist leader Herr Stadthagen made a scathing reply.  He said:—­

“Even if everything in England is as Herr Helfferich described it, the state of things is much better there than in Germany.  Herr Helfferich stated the cases in which arrest and search of dwellings may take place, but those are cases in which similar action can be taken in Germany in time of peace under the ordinary criminal law.  The Englishman has quite other rights.  He has the right to his personality, and, above all, the officials in England, unlike Germany, are personally responsible.  When we make a law, that law is repealed by the Administration.  That is the whole point, but Herr Helfferich does not see it, and he does not see that we live in a Police State and under a police system.  Did it ever occur to anybody in England to dispute the right of immunity of members of parliament?  Did it ever occur to anybody in England to go to members of the Opposition in Parliament and demand that they should resign their seats on pain of arrest?  Or has anybody in England been threatened with arrest if he does not withdraw a declaration against the committee of his party?  Two newspapers have been suppressed in England because they opposed munitions work.  I regret this check upon free criticism in England, but what would have happened in Germany?  In Germany there would undoubtedly have been a prosecution for high treason.  In England, moreover, the newspapers are allowed to reappear, and that without giving any guarantees.  In Germany we are required to give guarantees that the papers shall be conducted by a person approved of by the political police.  Herr Helfferich employs inappropriate comparisons.  I will give him one which applies.  The political police in Germany is precisely what the State Inquisition was in Venice.”