To The Editor Of The Time...
The Times, 1824-03-24T00:00:00

'Sir.-AF. yoa are lipon all occasions most willing to render Your ibly-conducted paper subservient to the best interests Of the public, illow me to call their and Parliament's attention to the faith of Government pledged to the public unider the followiog circum. ;tances:- lVhell tic foohlsh preparations were naking in the Parks, in July, 11814, some question3 were put to 1linistcr6 as to the expense about o be incurred in the buildings trom which the fire-works were to be txhibited and among othern. whether the celebrated bridge across he canal itu St. James' -park wa8 included ? To this question the eplIv war no, as the bridge was intended to remain a permanent itructure for the convenience of the public; and this continued, for few years a slhort and consequently a most useful conmmuniication Jetween WVestminster and the west cod of the town, to the great be- eflit (for time is money) of a most valuable class of artisans, wvho -eside in the formier district. Since thc removal of the bridge, under the pretence of its having Fallen to decay, more than one petition hasJl believe. been nresentetl :o his Majesty for its restoration in the more solid form of an iron )ne. and suibjected to better regulations than theloriginal, which. I awn was rendered as Intolerable nuisance frorn children being al- lowed to anmluse themiselves by jumping up and down its steps. To the applications, I understand, a positive reftisal haa been given, in spite of the compact made with the public at the period al. luded to. Now,Sir, when llinistersappearto be determined to appro- priate so( large a portion of the God-xend to giatifv the taste and feel- ings otThis, Majesty,as it respects WVindisor Castle and the neighbour. hood,possihlv thiis will notbe thought an improper time to ttrgc theful- filment of the agreement made with the public at the timte to which L allude. I could, without titucit mlifiicultv, adduce many argu- monts, indepenidemit o/ the promise made, to show the titility of re- placiug the bridge; but as space in our paper is extremely valuable, I shall content noyselt' with subjomning the follewing extract from your paper of Julv 14. 1814. to justify the assertion I have made, premising that the late Lord laondonderry and the nowv Lord Bex- ley were present, and assenting to the promise given by Sir Wm. (tonszreve, that the bridge should be pennanent; and theconsequetice of which was, that tile stilsject of the fire-works and the other cx- penses were imtifferefl to proceed without further observation. The following are the extracts *_ " Mr. Bankeswishedto knowwltether tte bridge over the canal in the park, wit]l all its ornamental superstructure, was included in thc IS,0001. ? (the sum estimated for the fire-works.) " Sir 'mn. Congreve said that it was at first included, but as the bridge was intended now to be a permanent one he did not think it could be fairly classed atnoitg the preparations ?or the fire-works. " Mr. Bennet asked whether the large ornaments upon the bridge were to be remove(d, or whether thev weere to he permanent ? " Sir Win. Congreve said, that'this would be a question of taste, an.l he could not esav which way it wouli be decided.' To the above I uill only atld, that in favour of good taste the tire luckily intervened; in favour of the cotivenience of the more useful classen of the community, 1 hopegood feeling may prevail; and that the hridve will h, restored -rnen the eand faith nled -,l at tlie neriod allu(lcd to. I am. &-c-, G. WV. TO THH EDITOfFOTJE TIES.