Henry Sacheverell's sermon of November 5, 1709 caused shock and outrage across the country. Sacheverell was an otherwise mediocre Anglican parish priest. He was arrested for printing a provocative and treasonous sermon (as described by those in power), which he had already preached twice, the second time being before the Mayor of London on 5 November 1709. 5 November was a day when traditionally it was a Whig party. On this day preachers would deliver a sermon outlining the dangers of the papacy in commemoration of the failed Gunpowder Plot and William III's successful landing at Torbay. The reason Sacheverell's "Perils of False Brothers" were so controversial was that he quickly dismissed them at the beginning of his speech to focus on what he perceived to be the more important issues. The main emphasis of Sacheverell's sermon was on criticism of "fanatics" and condemnation of "false brethren both in church and state", both of which Sacheverell considered a far greater danger than the "acknowledged enemies" identified by the Whigs. The most offensive message of the sermon was the contestation of the Glorious Revolution, as Sacheverell denied that it had involved resistance against King James II. Beyond this, Sacheverell challenged the religious settlement resulting from the Glorious Revolution, principally the "act of toleration" which had granted freedom of worship to Protestant dissenters; "denigrate the Queen's ministers by insinuating that they were false brethren of the English church." Sacheverell was tried for treason because of this speech, with the death sentence a very real possibility given the nature of this sermon. However, he was given a relatively large level… of paper… of outrage. This lends support to the idea that much of the population was passively obedient and that the possibility now arose that they were willing to vent all the frustrations they had against the system in support of Sacheverell. Therefore, the value of this article is to demonstrate that just because there were not a large number of riots and unrest in that period, it does not mean that the population was not dissatisfied with the regime. It serves to show that for the most part they would have been "passively obedient". While in the century following Sacheverells' sermon there were a great deal of analysis" of both his work and the effect it had, by the end of the 19th century serious study of this controversial work had left the ranks of historians and was been left to the realm of bibliographers. There is no doubt that Sacheverells sermon was controversial