which collected water from the peat moorlands and channelled it into the lower River Brue. Under the terms of the Act, two small canals, called Galton's Canal and Brown's Canal, were built near the North Drain to serve peat extraction workings. The drainage works were not wholly successful in preventing flooding, and the Commissioners often failed to obtain the levies they required to finance their operations. Promotion and planning One of the key promoters for a canal was Richard Prat, who was a lawyer in Glastonbury, had been the town clerk since 1813, and held several important offices in the town. He saw the canal as a way to halt the economic downturn in the town and its drainage problems, and called a meeting in August 1825, at which a firm plan was formulated. Richard Hammett, a local man from Street, was commissioned to conduct a survey of the route in 1826. Hammett had experience of building a manure canal through peat heathland. He considered two main routes; the first followed the course of the River Brue, but was rejected on the grounds of engineering costs, and the interference with its drainage function. The second route followed the South Drain, which had been newly constructed following floods in 1794, to connect with the River Brue near Cripps Bridge, and to re-use the old course of that River at Highbridge to create a basin. Hammett estimated that the main work required on the section from Highbridge to the South Drain would be the provision of a towpath. After this, the South Drain would need to be made wider and deeper, but this would aid its drainage function, and would reduce the levy on the local landowners, as the canal company would then be responsible for its maintenance. Two locks would be required on this upper section, with a total rise of just . He did not believe that cutting a canal through peat would present serious engineering problems as a result of his previous experience with the manure canal, but he seriously underestimated the cost at £9,000. A prospectus was issued which contained a detailed breakdown of the likely costs, revenue and profits of such a scheme, and the promoters prepared to obtain an Act of Parliament. During this time, someone challenged the original survey and another local surveyor was asked to review it. John Beauchamp suggested that no locks would