480 CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

It has been declared that every female orphan shall be accounted
of full age to receive her estate at the age of eighteen years, or day
of marriage, which shall first happen; 1715, ch. 39, s. 15; 1829, ch.
216, s. 5; and such female infants have been endowed with a
capacity, after that age, to execute a release to their guardians on
receiving it; 1829, ch. 216. s. 7, and, since, with a capacity to exe-
cute powers of attorney for such purposes; 1831, ch. 305, s. 5; and
also with a capacity * then to make a will disposing of their
502 real estates. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 1, s. 3. Yet, as it has
been held that such females cannot be deemed of fall age for any
other purpose, or in any other respect. Smith v. Williamson, 1 H.

6 J. 149; Davis v. Jacquin, 5 H. & J. 100; Bowers v. The State.

7 H. & J. 32; Crapster v. Griffith, ante, 7, it would seem necessarily
to follow, that female orphans between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-one years, who have no testamentary guardian, being
a class of infants for whom a guardian cannot be appointed by
the Orphans' Court, 1798, ch. 101. sub-ch. 12; 1807, ch. 136, s. 4,
guardiaus can only be provided for them by the Chancellor. It is
admitted, on all hands, that the father is the natural guardian of
all his legitimate children until they attain twenty-one years of
age, or until the females attain that age or marry. But it seems
to be doubtful whether the guardianship of a mother over her
children continues longer than the age of fourteen; Eyre v. Shafts-
bury, 2 P. Will. 116; Roach v. Oar-van, I Ves. 158; —— v. ——, 2
Fes. 374; Villareal v. Mellish, 2 Swan. 530, note; The King v.
Oakley, 10 East, 491; 2 Fonb. 237; Hay v. Conner, 2 H. & J. 347;
Jarrett v. The State, 5 6. & J. 28; if not, then it would seem, ac-
cording to a fair construction of the before-mentioned legislative
enactments, so far as the Courts of ordinary jurisdiction may be
permitted to assume any constructive power under them, 1798, ch.
101, sub-ch. 15, s. 20, that a guardian may be appointed by them
during the residue of such infancy. But in such case, and in all
others, where the ordinary tribunals have no power to make an
appointment; as in case of the lunacy or incompetency of a
natural or testamentary guardian; Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Will.
706; 1 Blac. Com. by Chit. 463, note 12; 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 4; or
where, because of the limited jurisdiction of those tribunals, they
are incompetent to grant relief suited to the peculiar nature or
exigency of the ease, the general jurisdiction and power of the
Chancellor, which has been in no way abolished or diminished,
may be resorted to and applied with effect. Beaufort v. Berty, 1
P. Will. 705; Roach v. Oar van, 1 Ves. 158.

The proper education of youth has, every where, and at all
times, been held to be a matter of great and important interest to
the State. Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Will, 703; Vattel, b. 1, ch. 11, s.
112. In England there has always been a religion, or church, by
law established, which, by considering the clergy as one of the