the area and the
population for which the mission is working must be expressed either by
exact figures or by estimates if we are to trace progress.

If these tables were kept over a number of years, the missionaries on
the spot and directors and inquirers at home would be able to see what
progress was being made towards fulfilling the obligation implied by the
definition of the station area or district, and what that obligation
involved.

II. When we know the work to be done we turn to the consideration of the
force available. This force consists of permanent and more or less
temporary members. Some will in all human probability remain in the
place till they die; they are of it, they belong to it; others will
probably depart elsewhere; they are not of the place; they speak of home
as far away; they are liable to removal; sickness which does not kill
them takes them away; the call of friends or business carries them back
to their own land; they are strangers all their days in the mission
district. Nevertheless, they are generally the moving, active force;
upon them progress seems to depend. It is strange, but it is true
generally: the permanent is the passive element, the impermanent is the
active. Here we simply state the fact to excuse or condemn the placing
of the missionary force first in our tables. First it is to-day.

We need then a table of the foreign missionary force. In its form it
will be a mere statement of proportions. The proportions are essential
in order to make comparison between one area and another possible; and
comparison is the sweet savour of survey. We cannot compare the work of
three men labouring among an unstated population with the work of two
other men working in an unstated population; the moment that the
proportions are worked out the cases can be compared. But some men
detest this purely quantitative comparison. They insist, and rightly,
that there is no true equality in the comparison. One man differs from
another man and his work differs from the work of the other man: over
large areas it is often the work of one man among many which really
saves the situation. It is quite true. In the last resort survey becomes
survey of personalities. But in a survey of the kind which we propose,
survey of personalities is impossible and most undesirable.

The survey proposed cannot deal with personalities, but that does not
invalidate the importance of the information asked for. Such forms
receive