The commemoration of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 presents an opportunity to look at the place of raw materials in what is virtually a non-existent field of academic enquiry: the history of economic policy. The history of economic thought has, to a large extent, become a study of the genealogy of neoclassical economics, which leaves out the history of an alternative tradition of economic policy which was not based on classical or neoclassical thought. In this alternative economic tradition – which I call production-centred economics (as opposed to the barter-centred classical and neoclassical tradition) – raw material production alone cannot, in the absence of manufacturing, lead to national wealth. A genealogy of the alternative production-centred economic tradition over the last 500 years is shown in Figure 7.1.

The main debate on economic policy in the nineteenth century [was between bartercentred English classical theory on the one hand, and [275] production-centred economic theory, represented by Germany and the USA, on the other. Later, into this century, the same line of reasoning is found in Canada and Australia. These later developments, however, will not be discussed here. The aim of this chapter is to show that the repeal of the Corn Laws was a policy measure where both classical barter-based economics in England – represented by Richard Cobden – and production-based economics – represented by Friedrich List – fully agreed that free trade in corn was to the benefit of England. Free trade in corn being agreed upon both by the free traders and the protectionists at the time, I shall argue that the repeal of the Corn Laws should not be seen as a victory of the principle of free trade, but rather as the final demise of English feudal privileges.