SALT Trade.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ?TIMES-S. Sir,-Will you permit a short reply to a Ltierpool letter in your columns of to-dav ? The price of Cheshire common salt, reulting from a combinati of the prieors, .has for many veasb been b-ept up to 20s. per ton. (the same article, in the war, 1812, when they had not combined, was 3s.)-which price of 209., with canalage to Livepal, shioppnm expenses there, and freightage to the different ports of Seodtand} adzd Ireland, amounts, on the average, to full .iOs per ton. Foreign salt,.the cost being taken at 9s. per ton (in many cases it does not cost half that rate), will, after the 6th proximo,,b^ supplied to the Irish fisheries under 229. per ton, and to the Scotch under 2s., thus s:ving from one third to one half of whet the Cheshire salt proprietors would exact. The agriculturists and other conanmera of s31t in;3ritzin wvill be- nefit in the like ratio; therefore the question resolves itself siimplg into thisAze the fisheries and other important Interests of the empire ts enjoy the proffered beon ofai- trae in salt, or are they to besacrificed, to benefit afew combined monopolists? I am.'liir. voY humb1e rnt .New Broa(d-street, Dec. 29. A. i. 0. . IUIl ur tWO BLfc, le m.n: m en eropped tlae price of salt at the worke from 20& to l4Ms- *ner tca.;l-I =13pose fro fright at the effects of their own systern. The pvbMc hav7e nt the sIadow o? Eecarity thit the price would not be z7ain dvaxnced to 20., or up- wavdi, on tthe instant d bac ul. SALT TRADE3.