The last sentence in this passage is obviously erroneous. That the aboriginal inhabitants of the great Antilles (Santo Domingo, Cuba, Porto-Rico, and Jamaica,) were identical with, or descended from, the Arawaaks of Guiana, is an opinion which has long prevailed, and which the circumstances stated by Sir R. Schomburgk tend to confirm. Indeed, they are described by most writers as Indians _or_ Arawaaks. But that there was any identity between the Indians and the tribes known by the name of Caribs, is an assertion totally at variance with the established facts. In support, however, of this assertion, Sir R. Schomburgk appeals to "history;" but what history, he does not state. I have perused, and still possess, almost every work that was ever written on the history of these islands; and they all lead to the conclusion, that the Indians of Santo Domingo (also called Hispaniola and Haiti) were a totally distinct race from the Caribs. The Indians were a mild, inoffensive people; the Caribs a race of savages, some say, cannibals. The former were indolent and effeminate; the latter fierce and warlike. In short, no two races ever presented such a striking disparity, not only in their manners and customs, but in their features and personal appearance. The second error into which Sir R. Schomburgk has fallen, is where he says: "There are various proofs that the Caribs inhabited Santo Domingo; among others, I found at the eastern point of the island, called Junta Engaño, numerous heaps of conch shells." The fact is, that the Caribs were the mortal enemies of the Indians. They were engaged with them in the fiercest warfare, and made frequent depredatory incursions into Santo Domingo and the other large islands. But they never formed any settlements in those islands, and cannot be said to have "inhabited" any of them, in the sense in which that word is used by Sir R. Schomburgk.