Editing Birmingham and Fazeley Canal (section)

==History==
The story of the Birmingham and Fazeley begins in 1770, when the Birmingham Canal Company was seen as having a monopoly. At the time, the coalfields at Walsall did not have canal access, and a public meeting was held at Lichfield on 18 August<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Navigation |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000196/17700827/008/0002 |newspaper=Aris’s Birmingham Gazette |location=England |date=27 August 1770 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref>  to discuss an independent link from Walsall to Fradley Junction on the [[Trent and Mersey Canal]], passing through Lichfield. Opposition from local landowners resulted in the plan being shelved, but a further plan was proposed at a meeting held in Warwick in August 1781, for a canal to run from Wednesbury through Fazeley to Atherstone, which was the end of the [[Coventry Canal]] at the time. The plans were changed somewhat in October, but shareholders in the Birmingham Canal saw it as a serious threat.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=70}}<ref name=CH70>{{harvnb |Hadfield |1985 |pp=70–73}}</ref>

Two bills were put before Parliament in 1782, one for the Birmingham and Fazeley,<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Birmingham. Monday, Feb. 4. |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000196/17820204/017/0003 |newspaper=Aris’s Birmingham Gazette |location=England |date=4 February 1782 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref>  and a rival one from the Birmingham Canal for a branch from Wednesbury to Walsall. Both sides opposed the other's proposal, and both bills were defeated.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=71}}

{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title           = Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Act 1784
| type                  = Act
| parliament            = Parliament of Great Britain
| long_title            = An Act for incorporating the Company of Proprietors of a Canal Navigation, authorized by an Act passed in the Eighth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty King George the Third, to be made from Birmingham to Bilstone and Autherley, with the Company of Proprietors of a Canal Navigation, authorized by an Act passed in the Twenty-third Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, to be made from Birmingham to Fazeley; and for consolidating their Shares, and amending the said last-mentioned Act.
| year                  = 1784
| citation              = [[24 Geo. 3. Sess. 2]]. c. 4
| introduced_commons    = 
| introduced_lords      = 
| territorial_extent    = 
| royal_assent          = 16 July 1784
| commencement          = 
| expiry_date           = 
| repeal_date           = 
| amends                = 
| replaces              = 
| amendments            = 
| repealing_legislation = {{ubli|[[Birmingham Canal Navigations Act 1835]]}}
| related_legislation   = 
| status                = repealed
| legislation_history   = 
| theyworkforyou        = 
| millbankhansard       = 
| original_text         = 
| revised_text          = 
| use_new_UK-LEG        = 
| UK-LEG_title          = 
| collapsed             = yes
}}
The promoters then opened negotiations with other canal companies, to ensure that when the canal was built, it would be part of a larger network. In 1782, they obtained an agreement from the Oxford Canal Company that they would complete the route to the River Thames at Oxford, one from the Coventry Canal that they would extend their canal from Atherstone to Fazeley, and agreed that they would complete the Coventry Canal's route from Fazeley as far as Whittington, as the Coventry Canal company could not finance the whole route. The Trent and Mersey would finish that link by building the remainder of the route to Fradley Junction.{{sfn |Nicholson |2006 |p=35}} A second bill was put before Parliament, and at the same time, the Birmingham Canal presented a scheme for a canal from Riders Green to Broadwaters, near Walsall, with eight branches, and a second canal from Newhall to Fazeley. The Birmingham and Fazeley was authorised by an [[act of Parliament]], the '''{{visible anchor|Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Act 1784}}''' ([[24 Geo. 3. Sess. 2]]. c. 4).<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Birmingham and Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Navigations |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000196/17840816/017/0004 |newspaper=Aris’s Birmingham Gazette |location=England |date=16 August 1784 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> The new company and the Birmingham Canal merged soon afterwards, becoming the awkwardly named Birmingham & Birmingham & Fazeley Canal Company.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |pp=71-72}}

[[John Smeaton]] was the [[Canal engineer|engineer]] employed by the Birmingham and Fazeley, but work did not start immediately, as he was also responsible for the Riders Green to Broadwaters line, which was completed first.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=72}} The project did not go smoothly, as there were disputes between James Bough, the superintendent of the canal company, and Pinkertons, who were the civil engineering contractors employed to carry out the work. The issue concerned the cement that the Pinkertons were using.{{sfn |Skempton |2002 |pp=527–528}} Work on the Fazeley line began in April 1786,{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=72}} with Bough still acting as superintendent, and the Pinkertons responsible for the construction of the section between Minworth and Fazeley. In late 1786, George Pinkerton found out that the levels, which had been surveyed by Bough, were wrong. Samuel Bull, the engineer for the canal company, investigated and reported that Pinkerton was right. The Pinkertons started to work on the project from January 1787, even though the contracts were not signed until May. Bough made a series of allegations that Pinkertons' workmanship and the materials used were of poor quality.{{sfn |Skempton |2002 |pp=527–528}}

The company stopped paying Pinkerton in late 1788, as the costs were exceeding the original estimates, and the contract was taken away from them in February 1789. There was then a financial dispute over money which had been paid to Pinkerton as "extras", but which the company then claimed were overpayments. Some £2,750 was at issue, and the case rumbled on for a decade, until a court case in 1801 gave him only £436 of the claim. Unhappy with the outcome, Pinkerton justified his position, but his remarks about John Houghton, the Company Clerk, were deemed to be libellous, for which he was fined and spent some time in prison.{{sfn |Skempton |2002 |pp=527–528}}<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=The King v. Pinkerton |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000082/18020525/005/0003 |newspaper=Morning Chronicle |location=England |date=25 May 1802 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

[[File:Farmer's Bridge Locks No 1, Birmingham - geograph.org.uk - 990118.jpg|thumb|Farmer's Bridge locks. Lock No.1]]
The canal was completed in August 1789.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=72}} The benefits of the co-operation with the other canal companies were that when all the links were completed in 1790, it immediately generated a great deal of freight traffic. This created problems, as the flights of locks at Aston and Farmer's Bridge became congested, and this became worse when the Warwick Canal built a junction onto the Digbeth Branch. The problem was not solved until 1844, when the Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal to the south east and the Tame Valley Canal to the north west were opened.{{sfn |Nicholson |2006 |p=35}} The name of the Birmingham & Birmingham & Fazeley Canal Company was changed to Birmingham Canal Navigations in 1794.{{sfn |Hadfield |1985 |p=73}}

[[File:Birmingham ^ Fazeley Canal from Salford Junction - geograph.org.uk - 3812982.jpg|thumb|The concrete footbridge of 1926 at Salford Junction]]
In 1926 the construction of Salford Bridge which spans the River Tame and the Tame Valley Canal at the end of Lichfield Road at the foot of Gravelly Hill resulted in the demolition of the cast-iron roving bridge over the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, and also four cottages belonging to the canal company. The cast-iron bridge was replaced with a new reinforced concrete bridge and new cottages were erected on the other side of the canal.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=New £100,000 Birmingham Bridge |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000619/19261011/012/0012 |newspaper=Birmingham Daily Post |location=England |date=11 October 1926 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

[[File:Tyburn Bridge near Tyburn, Birmingham - geograph.org.uk - 3166960.jpg|thumb|Tyburn Bridge dating from 1934]]
The bridge over the canal at the junction of Chester Road and Kingsbury Road (Tyburn Bridge) was replaced in 1934.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=New Bridges |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000671/19340706/008/0008 |newspaper=Evening Despatch |location=England |date=6 July 1934 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

In 1935 Birmingham Council gained powers to stop up the arm of the canal on the north east side of Summer Row for the development of a new civic centre and the widening of Great Charles Street.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Civic Centre |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000671/19351206/009/0009 |newspaper=Evening Despatch |location=England |date=6 December 1935 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

In 1962 Birmingham Council decided to fill in the arm of the canal which ran in Newtown Row, following the drowning of a boy the previous year.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Canal Arm to be filled in |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000671/19351206/009/0009 |newspaper=Birmingham Daily Post |location=England |date=8 June 1962 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

In 1967 a pipeline was laid under the towpath to link the gasworks at Coleshill with the Washwood Heath Works.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=A giant from the sea |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002139/19680313/008/0008 |newspaper=Birmingham Mail |location=England |date=13 March 1936 |access-date=1 June 2024 |via=British Newspaper Archive |url-access=subscription  }}</ref> 

In 2019, the Canal & River Trust announced that repair works had started on two locks at Farmer's Bridge Locks as part of a wider £2.5 million programme of repairs across the West Midlands.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Works to repair famous Farmer's Bridge Flight locks start in Central Birmingham {{!}} Canal & River Trust |url=https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/works-to-repair-famous-farmers-bridge-flight-locks-start-in-central-birmingham |access-date=2022-03-07 |website=canalrivertrust.org.uk |language=en}}</ref>

In 2022, work started on the "Scotland Works" site opposite Lock 1 of Farmer's Bridge Locks, a former glassworks that is being redeveloped into residential apartments named Lockside Wharf by Consortia Developments and Joseph Mews Property Group.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-07 |title=Property investment group brought on board for Lockside Wharf scheme {{!}} TheBusinessDesk.com |url=https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2059943-property-investment-group-brought-on-board-for-birmingham’s-lockside-wharf-scheme |access-date=2022-03-07 |website=West Midlands |language=en}}</ref> Lockside Wharf will comprise 61 apartments and is currently under construction.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lockside Wharf {{!}} Birmingham Investment |url=https://joseph-mews.com/development/lockside-wharf/ |access-date=2022-03-07 |website=Joseph Mews |language=en-GB}}</ref>