中国法律现代化始于清末变法，清末变法规模化移植域外制度，积极开展司法改革，清末法院机构设置与审级制度都随之全面革新，初步建立起现代化的审级制度。短暂的改革过程中暴露出诸多问题，多方制约使得改革难以为继。北京国民政府继承了清末四级三审制，司法总长许世英和朱深曾于民国元年和民国八年两次提出过普设法院计划，均由于司法经费和司法人才的制约未能功成。相反，兼理司法制度自民国初年以来，在一片激烈的指摘批评中一直存在，并成为基层司法组织的基本形式。经费保障逻辑更导致地方行政机关对司法经费筹措具有决定性的影响力，离了行政机关，司法机关难以生存。审级制度的运转并不顺利，民众鲜少感受到新式司法的优点和作用，却经常饱受其害，对于司法独立等新式司法之倡议持较为悲观态度。南京国民政府时期进行了一系列审级改革尝试。但在经费和人才状况并无明显改善的情况下成果寥寥。为提高审判质量，所采取的普设法院，再推行县司法处，直至地方法院的设置。司法当局既无法获得司法建设所需资源，却由于领事裁判权而使司法建设仍受数量指标的拖累，加剧当时困境。面对愈发强烈的批判，解决讼案积压延误等问题，成为南京国民政府迫在眉睫的目标。然而，司法当局并没有规划出系统的改良计划，只是没有方向感的进行，简化各项程序，放宽各种限制，依职权推动诉讼，即使反复简化改良之程序依旧令民众难以适用。审级制度改革成果呈现“以终为始”的状态：民众穷尽审级往往只是新一轮上诉的起点，多次改革的实际成果均事与愿违，普设法院、司法编制、司法独立、保障人权等方面亦是如此。司法当局聚焦于解决审级制度运行中凸显的浅层问题，但数次诉讼程序法改良并没有解决民众诉累的根本问题。纠纷案件在各个审级间流于形式，名为办结实则藕断丝连，发还更审致一案变数案，终审并非“案终事了”，与审级制度的终局性价值相悖。以终为始，审判如此，改革如此，时代亦如此。

The modernization of Chinese law started from the Reform Law in the late Qing Dynasty, which transplanted the system outside the region on a large scale and carried out the judicial reform actively. In the late Qing Dynasty, the institutional setup of courts and the system of trial level were comprehensively reformed, and a modern system of trial level was initially established. In the short reform process, many problems were exposed, and multiple constraints made the reform difficult to sustain.The Beijing National government inherited the four-level and three-trial system in the late Qing Dynasty. Xu Shiying and Zhu Shen, the attorney-General, proposed the plan of the general court twice in the first and eighth years of the Republic of China, but failed to succeed due to the restriction of judicial funds and judicial talents. On the contrary, since the early years of the Republic of China, the judicial system has existed in a fierce criticism, and become the basic form of grassroots judicial organization. The fund guarantee logic leads to the local administrative organs have a decisive influence on the judicial fund raising. Without the administrative organs, the judicial organs are difficult to survive. The operation of the trial system is not smooth. The public seldom feel the advantages and functions of the new judicial system, but often suffer from its harm. They hold a pessimistic attitude towards the judicial independence and other new judicial initiatives.Nanjing National Government carried out a series of trial level reform attempts. But little has been achieved in the absence of significant improvements in funding and human resources. In order to improve the quality of trials, the general court was adopted, and then the implementation of the county judicial branch, until the establishment of local courts. The judicial authorities could not obtain the resources needed for judicial construction, but because of the consular jurisdiction, the judicial construction was still burdened by quantitative indicators, which aggravated the dilemma at that time. In the face of growing criticism, it became an urgent goal of the National government of Nanjing to resolve the backlog of cases and delays. However, instead of devising a systematic plan for improvement, the judicial authorities have proceeded without direction: simplifying procedures, relaxing restrictions, and acting on their authority, even though the repeated simplification of the improved procedures still makes it difficult for the public to apply them.The results of the reform of the trial level system show a state of "beginning with the end" : the people‘s exhaustion of the trial level is often just the starting point of a new round of appeals. The actual results of several reforms are counterproductive, and the same is true of the general court, the judicial establishment, judicial independence, the protection of human rights and other aspects. The judicial authorities focus on solving the superficial problems highlighted in the operation of the trial level system, but the reform of the procedure law for several times has not solved the fundamental problem of people‘s litigation. A dispute case becomes a formality among all levels of trial. It is called the conclusion of the case, and the final trial is not the "final case", which is contrary to the finality value of the system of trial level. Begin with the end, so is judgment, so is reform, so is the age.