In the controversy surrounding the publication in 1975 of the first volume of R. H. S. Crossman's Cabinet Diaries, which the British government had sought first to discourage and then to proscribe through legal proceedings, contentious questions were posed. Weighed in the balance were such concerns vital to a democracy as the need for secrecy in the highest reaches of government, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the citizenry to be informed witnesses and critics of the actions carried out in its name by the government. In the wide-ranging discussion, opposed principles of what in fact constituted the public interest were advanced: for several months, Great Britain engaged in a debate concerning the merits of ‘open’ and ‘closed government.’ At law, the Lord Chief Justice of England strove to balance the rival claims, attempting to secure both the desirable ends of an appropriate measure of ‘confidentiality’ for the business of government and an earlier public accountability for Cabinet proceedings. Whatever the merits of that accommodation – his decision cleared the way for the publication of Crossman's memoirs – the Labour government responded politically by strengthening ‘closed government,’ in the form of measures which the Cabinet deemed necessary for the effective functioning of government.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the proceedings was the attitude evident in official circles, shared by political leaders and preeminent civil servants, to the effect that the citizenry had little business inquiring precisely how Britain was governed.