Circular economy theorists and advocates typically describe traditional market economies as linear “take, make, use and dispose” systems. Various policy interventions, from green taxes to extended producer responsibility, are therefore deemed essential to ensure the systematic (re)introduction of residuals, secondary materials and components in manufacturing activities. By contrast, many nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writers documented how the profit motive, long-distance trade and actors now largely absent from present-day circularity discussions (e.g., waste dealers and brokers) spontaneously created ever more value out of the recovery of residuals and waste. These opposite assessments and underlying perspectives are perhaps best illustrated in the nineteenth classical liberal and early twenty-first century interventionist writings on circularity of Fellows, members and collaborators of the near tricentennial British Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. This article summarizes their respective contributions and compares their stance on market institutions, design, intermediaries, extended producer responsibility and long-distance trade. Some hypotheses as to the sources of their analytical discrepancies and current beliefs on resource recovery are then discussed in more detail. A final suggestion is made that, if the analysis offered by early contributors is more correct, then perhaps the most important step towards greater circularity is regulatory reform (or deregulation) that would facilitate the spontaneous recovery of residuals and their processing in the most suitable, if sometimes more distant, locations.