There had been no pretense of trial, and neither the accused nor any witnesses had been summoned. Nor did the English execute the sentence, which duty they entrusted to Uncas, who was promised protection against the Narragansetts if he would perform it.[589] Uncas readily undertook the work, and Miantanomo, probably cursing his folly for having ever trusted a white man, was put to death. “That the Indians might know that the English did approve of it, they sent 12 or 14 musketeers home with Uncas to abide a time with him for his defence, if need should be”; which shows how little real credence was placed in the story of a general rising.[590] The savages could have made no complaint, had the English from the beginning preserved a strict neutrality; but they had not done so. They had given Miantanomo leave to take the war-path, and, when he was captured, they had assumed the responsibility of seeing that justice should be done. They had, nevertheless, observed none of its forms, and had merely handed the prisoner back to his savage captor with what amounted to orders for his death, without trial and without a hearing. Aside from the injustice of the course pursued, it is difficult to think of one more certain to turn the “proud and turbulent” spirits of the slain man's thousand followers permanently against the English settlers.[591] Nevertheless, for the present, in spite of a threatened outbreak upon their part two years after the slaying of their chief, the Indian relations of the colonists for long consisted mainly in efforts to preserve the peace among rival native tribes and to collect tribute.[592] Footnote 589: _Acts United Colonies_, vol. I, p. 11; J. Winthrop, _History_, vol. II, p. 158. Footnote 590: _Ibid._, p. 162. Footnote 591: _Cf._ letter from the sachems to Massachusetts, 1644, in _R. I. Records_, vol. I, pp. 136 _ff._ Footnote 592: For the causes of the Narragansett “war” of 1645, _cf._ _Acts United Colonies_, vol. I, pp. 50 _ff._ For the war with Ninigret, _Ibid._, vol. II, pp. 101 _ff._