An animated debate followed upon that eloquent address. Viscount Castlereagh complained that Lord Cochrane, instead of defending himself, had only libelled Lord Ellenborough and the noblest institutions of the land. Other speakers expressed similar opinions; but others testified to the consistent character of Lord Cochrane, rendering it impossible that he should be guilty of the offence with which he was charged; and others again confessed that, having previously had doubts in the matter, those doubts had been removed by the high-minded tone and the powerful arguments of his defence. But in the end the House adopted the view set forth by Lord Castlereagh; that its duty was simply to accept the verdict of the Court of the King's Bench, and, according to precedent, to expel the member declared guilty by that court, without daring to revive the question of his guilt or innocence; and that it would be better for an innocent man thus to suffer, than for the House to assail "the bulwarks of English liberty," by turning itself into a Star Chamber, or an Inquisition, and attempting to interfere with "the regular administration of justice." The proposal that Lord Cochrane's case should be referred to a Select Committee was rejected without a division. The motion that he should be expelled from the House was carried by a hundred and forty members, against forty-four dissentients.
That new act of injustice, however, though it added much to Lord Cochrane's suffering, brought him no fresh disgrace. It only led to his triumphant re-election as member for Westminster, under circumstances that were reasonably consoling to him. His seat having been taken from him on the 5th of July, a great meeting of the electors, attended by five thousand people, was held on the 11th. It was there unanimously resolved that Lord Cochrane was perfectly innocent of the Stock Exchange fraud, that he was a fit and proper person to represent the City of Westminster in Parliament, and that his re-election should be secured without any expense to him. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, his stout opponent at the previous election, who was now urged to oppose him again, honourably refused to do so; and therefore the election passed without a contest. But contest would only have added to its glory; unless, indeed, the people, over-zealous in their expression of sympathy for their representative, had been provoked thereby to violent exhibition of their temper. Even without such provocation the turmoil of the re-election day, the 16th of July, was great; angry crowds assembled in the streets, and menacing words against the Government and its myrmidons were loudly uttered. The wisdom of Sir Francis Burdett and other leaders of the popular party, however, prevented anything worse than angry speech.