CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 481

three estates of the realm, has been interwoven with the funda-
mental law and Constitution of the nation. The regulation of
schools, has, therefore, in England, to a certain extent, been
* subjected to that ecclesiastical establishment. Cox's Case,
1 P. Will 29; In re Masters, &c. of the Bedford Charity, 2 503
Swan. 522. And consequently the authority of the English Chan-
cellor to interfere with, and direct the religious education of
infants, so far at least as to prevent them from being brought up
in the belief of any religious creed, in direct and open violation of
that of the established church, is founded upon this fundamental
law and on that obligation by which all judicial officers are bound
to support the. Constitution of their country. Storke v. Storke, 3
P. Will. 51; Roach v. Gar-van, 1 Ves. 158, and Supp.; Villareal v.
Mellish, 2 Swan. 533; Blake v. Leigh, Amb. 306; De Manneville v.
De Manneville, 10 Ves. 61; Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep.
11; Lyons v. Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 115; Shelley v. Westbrooke,
4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 126. Before the Revolution, a religious creed
Laving been established by law here, a similar obligation was im-
posed upon the Courts of justice here, to take care of what was
then deemed the proper religious education of infants in Mary-
land. 1715, ch. 39, s. 10: 1729, ch. 24, s. 12.

It has, however, been declared, by the Constitution of this Be-
public, " that, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in
such manner as lie thinks most acceptable to him, all persons pro
leasing the Christian religion are equally entitled to protection in
their religious liberty,"&c.; Decla. Rights, Art. 33; and also, "that
the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved." .Decla.
Bights, Art. 38. And it having also been declared, by the Consti-
tution of the United States, that " Congress shall make no law re-
specting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer-
cise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Const. U. S. Amend. Art. 1. It follows, that none of the public
functionaries of this State, or of the Union, can exercise any
authority at variance with those great rules of fundamental law by
which the freedom of religious and political opinions are secured to
our citizens. Consistently, however, with those constitutional
provisions, it may, nevertheless, be held to be within the scope of
the Chancellor's jurisdiction in the case of infants, to have them
removed from under any open or direct immoral and vicious influ-
ence or example; as from the tuition of an infamous convict; 1798,
ch. 101, sub-ch. 4; where the infant could not fail to be engaged in
vicious pursuits, or be prevented from acquiring those virtuous prin-
ciples and habits indispensable to the formation of a good and useful
citizen. Beaufort v. Berty. 1 P. Will. 703; Storke v. Storke, 3 P. Will.
51; DeMtmnevillev. De Manneville, 10 Ves. 61; Whitfield v. Hales, 12
Ves. 492; Ball v. Ball, 2 Cond. Cha. Rep. 299; Wellesteyv. Beaufort, 3
Cond. Cha. Rep. 1; 2 Lond. Jurist, 66; Jones v. Stockett, ante, 428.
31 2B.