In response to "A fair-use victory for Google in these United States", 8/14/2013, JM writes:
I’ve always wondered when this change took place, so was delighted to see this post. Here’s a harder one to answer: how did it happen that “to table a motion” have opposite meanings in British vs. American English?
For the verb table, the OED gives sense 4: "To lay on the table of a legislative assembly or other deliberative meeting. Now freq. in extended use", with two geographical variants:
(a) To present or submit formally for discussion or consideration. Common in English-speaking regions outside the United States.
(b) orig. and chiefly U.S. To postpone consideration of, esp. indefinitely; to shelve.
The citations for the U.S. version begin in the middle of the 19th century:
1849 Whig Almanac1850 22/1 Senator Westcott tried to table the bill, but failed: it became law.
1866 Daily Tel. 30 Jan., To table a resolution has nearly the same effect in America as the order to read a bill ‘this day six months’ has in England.
1916 J. B. Thoburn Stand. Hist. Oklahoma II. 715 [The bill] was sent to the council where it was considered, amended, and finally tabled.
1921 Daily Tel. 15 Oct. 12/1 The Leader of the house has to give an assurance that the bill will be tabled until the Conference ends.
1950 W. S. Churchill Second World War III. ii. xxxvi. 609 The British Staff prepared a paper which they wished to raise as a matter of urgency, and informed their American colleagues that they wished to ‘table it’. To the American Staff ‘tabling’ a paper meant putting it away in a drawer and forgetting it.
1974 Sumter (S. Carolina) Daily Item 22 Apr. 5 a/7 Various plans for fundraising were discussed but it was decided to table any such plans until the fall.
1998 W. Shatner et al. Spectre xx. 240 Kirk tabled his curiosity about the mirror Picard.
2004 Time 29 Mar. 60/3 The one big-budget project they planned..was tabled..because the high costs would have brought in the panicky suits.
How and why did this inter-continental drift take place?
In the Continental Congress, things were "ordered to lie on the table" to give members a chance to read them, discuss them informally, and decide what to do — without any sense of indefinite postponement, and indeed often with a specific promise that they will be "taken into consideration" after a short delay. Thus Journals of the Continental Congress, Tuesday, October 18, 1774:
The Committee appointed to prepare an address to the people of Great-Britain, brought in a draught, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table, for the perusal of the members, & to be taken into consideration to-Morrow.
And Journals of the Continental Congress, Wednesday, October 19, 1774:
The committee appointed to prepare a memorial to the Inhabitants of these colonies, reported a draught, which was read, & ordered to lie on the table.
Ordered, That this memorial be taken into consideration to-morrow.
But by the 1840s, ordering that a proposal "lie on the table" seems to have become at least in some cases an alternative to taking any more consequential action, such as referring it to committee or sending it to be printed. Thus Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Tuesday, January 5, 1841:
Mr. Buchanan presented six memorials from citizens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying the substitution of tea and coffee for the spirit now allowed to the seamen in the navy ration; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.
Mr. Linn presented the memorial of Nathan Ranney, late collector of the port of St. Louis, praying the reimbursement of expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office.
Ordered, That it lie on the table.
Mr. Linn presented the memorial of Littleberry Sublette, praying a grant of public land; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.
Mr. Prentiss presented the petition of a number of the inhabitants of Hardwick, in the State of Vermont, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the slave-trade between the States.
A motion was made that the petition be received; and the same being objected to,
On motion by Mr. King,
Ordered, That the motion to receive the petition lie on the table.
Mr. Wright presented the memorial of a number of citizens of the State of New York, remonstrating against the passage of a bankrupt law at the present session of Congress; which was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Wright presented the memorial of a number of citizens of New York, praying the passage of a bankrupt law. Ordered, That it lie on the table.
Similarly, in the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Tuesday, March 29, 1842, lying on the table is an an explicit alternative to voting up or down:
And whereas the Committee of Ways and Means have received no reply to the communication thus made: therefore,
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be required to communicate to this House the plans, views, information, and matters called for in the letter above mentioned, from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.
A motion was made by Mr. Steenrod, that the resolution do lie on the table; which being rejected,
The question was put, under the operation of the previous question, that the House do agree thereto,
And passed in the affirmative.
However, to be "laid on the Clerk's table" is still used to something like "To present or submit formally for discussion or consideration". From the same issue of the House Journal:
On motion of Mr. John Quincy Adams, it was
Ordered, That members having petitions and memorials to present be permitted to hand them to the Clerk, endorsing the same with their names, and the reference or disposition to be made thereof; and that such petitions and memorials be entered on the Journal, subject to the control and direction of the Speaker; and if any petition or memorial be so handed in, which, in the judgment of the Speaker, is excluded by the rules, that the same be returned to the member from whom it was received.
Under this order, petitions, memorials, &c., were laid on the Clerk's table, and disposed of as hereinafter mentioned, viz:
Summers laid on the table a petition of citizens of the counties of Wayne and Cabell, in the State of Virginia;Charles J. Ingersoll laid on the table a petition of citizens of Northern Liberties, in the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania;Moore laid on the table a petition of citizens of Concordia, in the State of Louisiana;Everett laid on the table a petition of citizens of Norwich and Newbury, in the State of Vermont;Everett laid on the table a petition of citizens of Cheshire county, in New Hampshire, and Windham and Windsor counties, in Vermont; [...]
And from the House Journal, Monday, April 11, 1842:
Under the order of the 29th of March, petitions, memorials, and papers, were laid on the Clerk's table, and disposed of as hereinafter mentioned, viz: [...]
Mr. Harris laid on the table a petition of Magdalene Bible, widow of Adam Bible, a revolutionary soldier, praying an increase of pension.
Mr. Barnard laid on the table a petition of Elizabeth Powers, of the State of New York, widow of Timothy Powers, praying remuneration for the revolutionary services of her husband.
Mr. Read laid on the table a petition of Isaac Porter, of the State of Pennsylvania, praying Congress to redeem a quantity of continental paper money, issued in the revolutionary war.
Mr. Read laid on the table a petition of the representatives of Ebenezer Sprout, of Susquehanna county, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying compensation for the services of his grandfather, Nathaniel Sprout, of his father, Ebenezer Sprout, and of his uncle, Samuel Sprout, in the revolutionary war.
Mr. Cooper, of Georgia, laid on the table a petition of William B. Davis, in behalf of his mother, Lucy Davis, now widow of William Davis, 3d, a soldier of the Revolution, praying a pension, in consideration of the revolutionary services of her husband.
Mr. Holmes laid on the table a petition of Charlotte Head, of Charleston, in the State of South Carolina, widow of Richard M. Head, formerly an officer of the revolutionary army, praying for a pension, in consideration of the services of her said husband.
Mr. Sanford laid on the table a petition of Elias Doty, of the State of New York, a soldier in the Revolution, praying for a pension.
These petitions were referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.
Mr. Roosevelt laid on the table a petition of importers of and dealers in watches, pearls, precious stones, &c., in the city of New York, praying a reduction of duty upon jewelry; which petition was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Roosevelt laid on the table like petitions of owners and agents of the packet lines of ships from New York to Liverpool, in England, and to Havre, in France; which petitions were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Boardman laid on the table a petition of inhabitants of New Haven, in the State of Connecticut, praying for a protective or discriminative tariff.
Mr. Boardman laid on the table like petitions of inhabitants of Guilford and Wolcott, in the State of Connecticut.
Mr. John G. Floyd laid on the table a like petition of inhabitants of Oneida county, in the State of New York.
Mr. Barnard laid on the table a like petition of inhabitants of the village of Cohoes, in the State of New York.
Mr. James Irvin laid on the table a like petition of citizens of Huntingdon, in the State of Pennsylvania.
Mr. James Irvin laid on the table a like petition of citizens of the city of Philadelphia, in relation to the manufacture of iron.
Mr. Trumbull laid on the table a petition of citizens of Wethersfield, in the State of Connecticut, praying for a protective tariff.
Mr. Aycrigg laid on the table a petition of glass manufacturers of Jersey City, in the State of New Jersey, praying the adoption of a tariff for the protection of the manufacture of glass.
Mr. Trumbull laid on the table a petition of citizens of Farmington, in the State of Connecticut, praying for a protective tariff.
These petitions were referred to the Committee on Manufactures.
At the same time, ordering that something continue to "lie on the table" seems to be increasingly used as a way to avoid further action — Senate Journal, July 18, 1850
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Baldwin, the 18th March, in relation to further legislation for the protection of colored citizens of one State in the port of another; and,
On motion,
Ordered, That it lie on the table.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Benton, the 29th April, in relation to the execution of the printing of the Senate; and,
On motion,
Ordered, That it lie on the table.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Benton, the 23d January, in relation to the forms of practice of the circuit and district courts of Missouri; and,
On motion,
Ordered, That it lie on the table.
[and 20 more]
However, in the 1860s, being ordered to lie on the table still sometimes seems to be a positive step towards further action — Senate Journal, March 5, 1867:
Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a joint resolution (S. 1) presenting the thanks of Congress to George Peabody; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent.
Ordered, That it lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. Stewart asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill (S. 1) to reorganize the judiciary of the United States; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent.
Ordered, That it lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. Stewart asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill (S. 2) to regulate certain proceedings in criminal cases; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent.
Ordered, That it lie on the table and be printed.
So, to sum up, it seems that to place something on the (Clerk's) table continued to be a formal description of putting it up for consideration of the legislative body, and to order it to "lie on the table" continued to mean to keep it on the body's agenda. This might be a positive part of the process, while the proposal was sent to be printed and/or referred to committee, or just waited its turn for consideration. But increasingly, ordering something to "lie on the table" became a way to avoid any further explicit action on it. And the verbal form "to table" comes to refer to this passive form of defeat.
Someone who knows more about the history of legislative procedures may be able to offer an explanation of why this didn't happen in the U.K. and other English-speaking countries. Is this a random fact about semantic drift? Or is it related to peculiarities of U.S. legislative practices, perhaps the procedural seeds of the current Washington gridlock?
↧