The first was the desire to increase as much as possible the upward tendency of the lines of the design, to elevate and vary the skyline throughout. Every ventilating shaft was taken advantage of; every turret was heightened, till the central lantern, itself an insertion, was surrounded by a forest of louvres and spires. The whole character of the design was changed; and the change arose, partly from original predilection for the spire form, partly from advancing knowledge of Gothic architecture, but principally from practical experience of the great architectural disadvantages entailed by the site, and the comparative lowness of the building itself. The change has been generally recognised as an improvement. The other tendency was to profuse ornamentation. His notion was that a general spread of minute ornament, a kind of “diapering” of the whole, was rich, but more simple, because less likely to interfere with the main outline, than ornaments on a large scale more sparingly employed. In the particular case before him he thought that smallness of scale in details would help to give an appearance of size to the building. But his feeling always was that ornamentation, if right in kind, could not be overdone; he did not recognise the value of plainer portions to act as a “setting” of the decoration; to him they appeared as “neglected spots;” and partiality of ornament he considered as tawdriness. In the internal courts he carried plainness out, even to excess; but he would not unite the two principles. The effect was visible over the fronts of the whole building, the more so, because his great idea was, by the aid of the sister arts, to make the New Palace a monumental history of England. Sculpture without, sculpture, painting, and stained glass within, were to preserve the memorials of the past, and declare the date and object of the building.[102] Nothing provoked more criticism than this high ornamentation of the design; but, in spite of all such adverse criticism, he still held to the principle as the true one, and believed that it would eventually be recognised as such. It was once remarked by M. Guizot that the work was a “mélange de finesse et de grandeur.” Such was certainly the leading idea which inspired its design. II. The preceding section has described the principles which governed the original conception and subsequent modifications of this great design. It remains only to give a brief description of the building as it exists, so far as is necessary to serve as a guide to the annexed plan.[103]