An excerpt from the beginning of the first chapter: THE surveyor who is called in to inspect a dangerous structure, frequently find himself in a position analogous to that of a medical man in attendance upon a patient who is "in a very bad way." Great issues may depend upon the diagnosis of the professional adviser, and the remedies which he may feel called upon to prescribe. But in one sense, the experiences of the surveyor are capable of a more fundamental application than those of the physician or surgeon; for not only does it rest with him to mend or mar the ailing structure which he sees before him, but he may find in it examples of what to avoid in other fabrics which may be devised and carried out by him. Constitutional defects in buildings, unlike those of the human subject, can actually be prevented from recurring in future instances. Undoubtedly, defects in old structures are more frequently due to faulty foundations than to any other cause. The equal distribution of weights when building upon a site has not been in the past, and is not invariably now, attended to upon scientific principles. To many persons the arrangement of foundations according to the relative compressibility of the soil is almost a new doctrine. How frequently have we seen one portion of a building carried to a much greater height than the remainder, while yet the same spread of footings and concrete foundations is allowed to prevail throughout? The results of such experimentalising must often be an unequal subsidence in the foundations, causing dangerous dislocations in the super-structure. Time-honoured customs, thoughtlessly followed, are sometimes to blame for anomalies in construction which may be attended with disastrous results. For example, admitting what no sane man will deny, namely, that the weights of various parts of a structure should be distributed over proportionate areas of ground, why should the spread of footings be regulated by the thicknesses of walls, instead of by their height and consequent weight? In reference to footings, it may be questioned, indeed, whether brick ones are of much utility when they project more than 4 1/2 inches. At a projection of 9 inches, a header ceases to have any tail under the wall, and when it has a tail of anything less than half its length, it seems incredible that the pressure of the footing upon the foundation can represent any significant portion of the weight above. Cases have been known in which walls have sunk, and their footings have turned up, clearly proving that the latter were unable to force their way through the soil. Had the bricks in the footings been bad, they would probably have been broken across. Failing this, what could have prevented them from turning, except the adhesive power of the mortar? Clearly, not statical conditions, which are supposed to be independent of "friction and sticktion." When a wall has sunk, and its footings have turned up, it may be asked, what is best to be done? First, then, let it be shored and needled up as necessary, and if it is to 'be raised and restored to its former position, let that be done if feasible. The defective footings should be taken out, a proper excavation should be made, and a solid bed of concrete should be formed beneath the wall, so that its surface should be level with the bottom of the footings. Finally, the footings should be restored with brickwork in cement, when the concrete is set, and should be well pinned up under the wall. If the weight of the wall is considerable, it may now be asked, over what surface of concrete is it distributed?...