财政制度事关国计民生，与国家政治权力的行使密切关联。在近代化浪潮下，传统财政管理日益捉襟见肘，近代财政的应运而生不可避免。近代财政是“西学东渐”的产物，学理引介在其中发挥着重要作用。财政官制改革的铺陈展开为财政近代化转型作了重要铺垫。面对困窘的财政局面，新设财政机构度支部着力于清理财政、编制全国预算，以加强中央财权。 宣统三年全国预算案是近代预算的初步尝试。度支部颁布多项与财政清理相关的法令，为清理财政提供了基本遵循。面对度支部大刀阔斧的财政改革，各部院与地方督抚表面上予以配合，实际上则对度支部有所猜忌。围绕宣统三年全国预算案编制，各部院、地方督抚与度支部形成角力。度支部理财以量入为出为方针，着力于裁节糜费、极力撙节，但事实上全国预算案不敷现象明显，赤字严峻。各部院及地方督抚不愿节流，度支部不得不作出让步与妥协，为保预算成立，遂编制赤字预算案。预算案的最后定型，反映出度支部陷入“名实不符”的泥淖，亦折射出晚清复杂的权力关系。经过一番反复，宣统三年全国预算案交由民意机关资政院议决。资政院成立预决算股员会，劳心尽力，组织议员分科审查预算。但因会期紧迫，资政院大会忽视程序现象明显。经资政院大会议决，度支部原奏的预算赤字被修正为盈余。民意机关对财政收支进行监督审核的首次尝试固然值得肯定，但资政院大会议决中存在的程序问题亦值得反思。程序问题的背后是晚清新政下资政院权力地位的写照，资政院当时并不具备完整的议会权力。既有程序将资政院限定于协赞机关之框架，唯有突破规则、便宜处分，方能实现资政院的自我定位。 故而，从法政角度观之，权力的名实不符，程序的便宜处分，实为近代财政反思之一端。究其缘由，作为新政机构的度支部和资政院，二者均规则意识缺失。度支部权责规则不尽，资政院超越既有规则，倘若二者都能在完备的规则下行事，更能与各方达成共识。在转型政治下，通过规则实现权力的自洽，达致良好的法政秩序，或许效果更佳。

The financial system is related to the national economy and the people's livelihood , which is closed related to the exercise of national political power. In the wave of modernization, traditional fiscal management was increasing stretched, so the development of modern finance was inevitable. Modern finance was the product of the eastward spread of western culture, academic translation played an important role in it. The institution of the fiscal official reform laid a foundation for the fiscal modernization. In the face of an embarrassing fiscal situation, Duzhi Department,the new financial institution focused its efforts on cleaning up the finance and compiling a national budget to strengthen the central financial power. National budget of Xuantong three years is the initial attempt of modern budget. The ministry of Duzhi, a financial department, promulgated a number of laws and regulations related to financial liquidation, which provided a basic compliance for it. In the face of the reform of Duzhi Department, ministries and local governors cooperated with it in superficial, but in fact, they were excluded to Duzhi Department. Surrounding the national budget outlay of Xuantong three years, ministries, local governors and Duzhi Department gradually came into struggle. The ministry of Duzhi took the make both ends meet as its financial policy, and focused on cutting wasteful spending. But in fact, the national budget was not enough and the deficit was severe. Department and local governors were reluctant to cut the budget, so the ministry of Duzhi had to make concessions and compiled the deficit budget. The finalization of the budget reflects the inconsistency between name and reality for Duzhi Department, it also shows the complex power relations of the late Qing Dynasty. After several repetitions, national budget of Xuantong three years was submitted to the public opinion organs of the Zizheng Congress. The establishment of the pre-budget office of the advisory council was committed to organize the parliamentary review of the budget. However, because of the urgency of the session, the ignore of procedure on the discussion of Zizheng Congress was obvious. The budget deficit of the original branch of the Duzhi Department was revised to a surplus by the discussion of Zizheng Congress.The first attempt by the public opinion authorities to supervise and review the fiscal revenue and expenditure is certainly worthy of appraise, but the procedural problems that exist on the discussion of Zizheng Congress is also worthy of reflection. Behind the problem of procedure is the portrayal of the power status of Zizheng Congress under the new policy of late Qing Dynasty. The congress did not have full parliamentary power . Because the existing procedures limit the congress, only by breaking the rules and taking cheap punishment can help the Zizheng Congress realize its status. Therefore, from the perspective of law and politics, the power does not match its real, the procedure of cheap punishment, in fact, is one of the modern financial reflection.The reason is that both the department of the Duzhi and Zizheng Congress are lack of rule consciousness. The power and responsibility of Duzhi is endless, and the Zizheng Congress surpasses the existing rules. If both of them can act under complete rules, they can reach consensus with all department. In transition politics, it may be more effective to achieve self-consistency of power and the good order of law and politics through rules.