[41] I say _practically_ as absurd, meaning absurd and practically meaningless in an economic argument. There are many points of view from which it would be philosophically true. [42] The examples given above might be multiplied indefinitely. Maudslay was brought up as a “powder-boy” at Woolwich. The inventors of the planing machine, Clements and Fox, were brought up, the one as a slater, the other as a domestic servant. Neilson, the inventor of the hot-blast, was a millwright. Roberts, the inventor of the self-acting mule and the slotting-machine, was a quarryman. The illustrious Bramah began life as a common farm-boy. [43] By labouring classes is meant all those families having incomes of less than a _hundred and fifty pounds_ a year. The substantial accuracy of this rough classification has already been pointed out. No doubt they include many persons who are not manual labourers; but against this must be set the fact that, according to the latest evidence, there are at least a _hundred and eighty thousand_ skilled manual labourers who earn more than a _hundred and fifty pounds_. And, at all events, whether the classes in question are manual labourers or not, they are, with very manifest exceptions, wage-earners—that is to say, for whatever money they receive they give work which is estimated at at least the same money value. A schoolmaster, for instance, who receives a _hundred and forty pounds_ a year gives in return teaching which is valued at the same sum. School teaching is wealth just as much as a schoolhouse; it figures in all estimates as part of the national income; and therefore the schoolmaster is a producer just as much as the school builder. [44] This corresponds with Arthur Young’s estimate of wages for about the same period. [45] Statisticians estimate that in 1860 the working classes of the United Kingdom received in wages _four hundred million pounds_; the population then being about twice what it was at the close of the last century. In order to arrive at the receipts of British Labour, the receipts of Irish Labour must be deducted from this total. The latter are proportionately much lower than the former, and could not have reached the sum of _eighty million pounds_. But assuming them to have reached that, and deducting _eighty million pounds_ from _four hundred million pounds_, there is left for British Labour _three hundred and twenty million pounds_, to be divided, roughly speaking, amongst _twenty million_ people; which for each _ten millions_ yields a _hundred and sixty million pounds_. [46] According to the latest estimates, it exceeds _seven hundred million pounds_.