The Duke of Norfolk was there as Earl Marshal. He observed he was the only person there who was not a Privy Councillor, and expressed a wish to be one. The Duke mentioned it to the King, who readily assented. He observed there had been no Duke of Norfolk a member of the Privy Council since the time of James II., and that that Duke of Norfolk was a Protestant. The Duke of Norfolk, however, will consider the oath before he takes it. He would have taken the Earl Marshal's oath to-day, but it was not there. We met in Cabinet at 4. The only innovations I yet hear of are in the dress of regiments. The King intends, as he told Lord Farnborough, to live at Windsor. He intends to have a battalion of the Guards at Edinburgh, and a regiment of the Line at Windsor. I went in, by some misdirection, the wrong way, and found Wood and Sir Ch. Pole waiting for the King. Wood, whom I met near the Horse Guards, as I was riding down to the Cabinet, told me the King had rehearsed his declaration to him, Sir Ch. Pole, and Lord Errol, before he went into the Privy Council. There was no grief in the room in which we waited. It was like an ordinary _levée_. The Chancellor went down to the House between the Cabinet and the Council, and took the oaths. The Lord Steward was sent for by Peel, and only arrived a quarter before four at the House of Commons. Lord Holland, Grey, and others seemed to think the Proclamation ought to have been made to-day, and I think it might have been just as well. The Duke of Wellington was much cheered by the people. The Duke was called out of the Cabinet to see Halford, but we had a long conversation as to the course to be pursued with respect to the Parliament, and especially with respect to the Regency question. The House must sit next week, as the sugar duties expire on Saturday next, and Goulburn seems disposed to propose a Bill for the continuance of the present duties for a time; to take money on account for miscellaneous services; to throw over the judicial Bills and end the session at once. The stumbling block is the Regency question--whether it should be brought forward now, and if brought forward, who shall be Regent. Peel seems to think we can hardly avoid bringing it on; as the session would have lasted two months in the event of the late King's living, why should it not now, when the reason for Parliament sitting is so much greater? And what would be the situation of the country if the King should die, leaving a minor Queen? Peel suggested appointing the Queen Regent for a year. I said, depend upon it, when the King once has her as Regent he will never consent to change her, and if you appoint her for a year you appoint her for the whole time.