These points determined, the rest of the plan followed naturally. The Commons must be on the left of the Central Hall, their private entrance in New Palace Yard, and the Speaker’s residence beyond; the Lords on the right, their private entrance in Old Palace Yard, and the Royal approach again beyond this. The suites of libraries and committee-rooms could nowhere be so well placed as on the river front. This general plan was at once adopted, and from its main features he never swerved. He disliked, as an error of principle, the necessary duality of design, and the need of carrying on the great line of approach to inferior rooms, while the Houses of Lords and Commons lay on the right and left. He would have preferred some one feature incontestably the chief, so as to give the unity which he craved. But the plan adopted was recommended by grandeur, simplicity, and convenience;[92] and these considerations kept him firm and unhesitating in his adherence to it. In fact, he was surprised that none of his competitors had adopted it. The plan and style being thus fixed, the composition of the design next suggested the question, whether there was anything in Gothic style which ought to interfere with the principles of symmetry, regularity, and unity, so dear to his artistic taste. Many (and his friend Pugin especially) contended for irregularity, picturesqueness, and variety. They would have had a group of buildings rather than a single one, or at any rate a building, in which there should be a general unity of style, rather than an actual symmetry of design, which they stigmatized as “clothing a “classical design with Gothic details.” But Mr. Barry’s notions were widely different. He conceived that, if certain first principles were true, they could not vary in different styles. He believed that symmetry and regularity were essential to unity and grandeur; and on this conviction he acted throughout, though sensible at the time that it would meet with opposition, and occasionally disheartened by the increasing strength of the opposition in after years.[93] This is, of course, no place for the discussion of so difficult a question in the abstract. All that is needful is to indicate the principle, which, as a matter of fact, guided and controlled the design, and which probably accounts for the existence of certain actual features, and the omission of others which might have been looked for.[94]