There is great diversity of opinion as to the best form of paroling authority. Generally, as in this Commonwealth, this power is lodged in the inspectors or managers of the several institutions or, in the case of commitments to county prisons, in the courts of criminal jurisdiction. In some States, as in New York, a distinct Board of Parole is constituted which visits the convict prisons at intervals and hears and determines all applications for parole that may be awaiting determination. Neither system has worked with complete satisfaction. Under both the grant of parole is largely a perfunctory matter, the inmates who have served their minimum sentences being generally admitted to parole at once, except in those cases, comparatively rare in number, where the applicant has been penalized for misconduct while in confinement. It would seem, therefore, that the first step toward a reform of the paroling system is not to set up a new paroling authority but to devise some more effective machinery to put before the existing authorities all the essential facts as to the applicant’s mental, moral and physical capacity to conduct himself as a self-respecting, useful member of the community. A second, but not less necessary step, is such a change in the spirit and method of prison discipline as will develop in the inmates by actual practice the qualities of self-respect and self-reliance, the sense of honor and of responsibility and the habit of co-operative action so essential to fit them for a life of freedom and responsibility, and at the same time to equip them with the habits of industry and the vocational skill which will enable them to make good in the life that awaits them beyond the prison-wall. VII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.