ormerly common in Italy. The word had at first no evil meaning, but was
applied to the retainers of the great noble houses, or to the
cavalier-type of swashbucklers familiar in fiction. In later Italian
history, especially in that of Venice, the _bravi_ were desperate
ruffians who for payment were ready to commit any crime, however foul.

BRAWLING (probably connected with Ger. _brallen_, to roar, shout), in
law, the offence of quarrelling, or creating a disturbance in a church
or churchyard. During the early stages of the Reformation in England
religious controversy too often became converted into actual
disturbance, and the ritual lawlessness of the parochial clergy very
frequently provoked popular violence. To repress these disturbances an
act was passed in 1551, by which it was enacted "that if any person
shall, by words only, quarrel, chide or brawl in any church or
churchyard, it shall be lawful for the ordinary of the place where the
same shall be done and proved by two lawful witnesses, to suspend any
person so offending, if he be a layman, from the entrance of the church,
and if he be a clerk, from the ministration of his office, for so long
as the said ordinary shall think meet, according to the fault." An act
of 1553 added the punishment of imprisonment until the party should
repent. The act of 1551 was partly repealed in 1828 and wholly repealed
as regards laymen by the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.
Under that act, which applies to Ireland as well as to England, persons
guilty of riotous, violent or indecent behaviour, in churches and
chapels of the Church of England or Ireland, or in any chapel of any
religious denomination, or in England in any place of religious worship
duly certified, or in churchyards or burial-grounds, are liable on
conviction before two justices to a penalty of not more than L5, or
imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months. This enactment
applies to clergy as well as to laity, and a clergyman of the Church of
England convicted under it may also be dealt with under the Clergy
Discipline Act of 1892 (_Girt v. Fillingham_, 1901, L.R. Prob. 176).
When Mr J. Kensit during an ordination service in St Paul's cathedral
"objected" to one of the candidates for ordination, on grounds which did
not constitute an impediment or notable crime within the meaning of the
ordination service, he was held to have unlawfully disturbed the bishop
of London in the conduct of the s