lay on the table Original "Lay On The Table" In Modern Dress?

[TheGrandRascal]

This is what I understand the motion to "Lay On The Table" to have been in it's original form:

 

The assembly's agenda basically consisted of a huge stack of (proposed) motions and resolutions lying on the Clerk's table; as each previous item of business was completed, the Clerk would take the topmost item from that stack and read it to the assembly.

 

If it was voted to "Lay The Question On The Table," the Clerk would lift up that massive stack of papers, and place the (formerly) pending matter -- the paper he was just reading -- immediately below th at stack -- literally, "on the table" -- then deposit the stack of resolutions -- ker-PLOP! on top of it. Thus that piece of business went from pending to the bottom of the stack (i.e., the very end of the agenda)... wherefrom, in due time, it would eventually recur.

 

Am I correct in thinking that a motion that a pending matter "be now moved to the foot of the agenda" woud be a midern-day equivalent of the original motion to "Lay On The Table" in modern dress?*   

-----

* It is cannot be an exact equivalent, alas, because the "modern" form must be adopted by a two-thirds vote, both because it deals with the priority of business, and also because it is a variation of the motion to "Suspend The Rules."

--TheGrandRascal

Wed., 01-Apr-2020 at 06:10am EDT (-0400 GMT).

[Gary Novosielski]

The "modern" form of Lay on the Table requires only a majority vote, if memory serves.  That is why it is not in order to use it as a substitute for the Previous Question, or Suspend the Rules, both of which do require a 2/3 vote.