THE KINGDOM OF THE ZULU	33
difficult cases. There were always in residence at his capital some indunas of cases (izinduna zamacala) who heard these cases and gave verdicts in the king's name. Most of these indunas were chiefs ruling areas of their own; others were sons, brothers, and uncles of the king, and there were commoners 'lifted up' by the king for their wisdom and knowledge of law. In all the councils of men throughout the land, the indunas were supposed to mark men skilful hi debate and law and their ability might get them into the king's council. Two of his indunas were more important than the others: the one was more specifically commander of the army and was a chief or prince; the other was called the 'great induna* (prime minister) and had weightiest voice in discussing affairs of state. He was always an important chief, never a member of the royal family.
The king was supposed to maintain the customary law. Zulu have illustrated this to me by quoting a case in which Mpande had to decide against one of his favotiritesand then sent men to wipe out the successful litigant's family so as to make it impossible for the decision to be carried out. But he could not decide, against the law, for bis favourite. Nevertheless, the king could in deciding a case create new law for what he and his council considered good reason.
The king was supposed to follow the advice of his council. If he did not, it is said that the council could take one of his cattle. The Zulu believed that the welfare of the country depended on the king's having wise and strong councillors ready to criticize the king. In council the king (or a chief) was supposed to put the matter under discussion before the council and himself speak last so that no one would be afraid to express his own opinion. The king might inform his close councillors of his views and they could put these to the council; he should not put himself in a position where he would be contradicted. But no councillor should express a strong opinion; he should introduce his points with some oblique phrase deferring to the king. The king ended the discussion and, if he were wise, adopted the views of the majority. The council could also initiate discussions on matters of tribal or national interest. It seems that in fact the king did consider his councillors' views and did not act autocratically. Sometimes he would excuse an action by saying that it had been done by his indunas without his authority, and this does seem to have happened; and in dealing with Europeans on occasion the kings said they were willing to do something,, and then backed out on the