In this second stage, it has been thought, was the form of betrothal among the old English in the days of Ine and Ælfred; but the evidence is not entirely conclusive. Indeed, a provision of Ine, relied upon by Schroeder to prove that the price had not been paid at the betrothal, appears to show the opposite, according to the reading of Liebermann. "If a man buy a woman (as a wife) and the gifta or tradition take not place, let him (the woman's guardian) give the money back (to the bridegroom), pay as much more as penalty, and recompense the betrothal sureties (byrgean) in as much as the breach of their pledge is worth."[867] Even with this reading it is just possible that the money restored was the _arrha_; and that betrothal sureties were required mainly to secure damage in case the bride were not actually transferred. A law of Ælfred likewise shows the practice of taking surety; but in this case also it seems uncertain whether the pledges were given for the payment of the bride-money; for damage on failure to surrender the bride as a maid; or for both bride-price and damage combined, though the last hypothesis seems the most probable. "If a betrothed woman commit adultery, if she be of ceorlish degree, let a penalty of sixty shillings be paid to the betrothal sureties, and let it be in live-stock, things of value; and in it let no (unfree) man be given." If the woman be worth six hundred or twelve hundred shillings _wergeld_, the penalty is fixed at one hundred or one hundred and twenty shillings respectively.[868] But another law of Ælfred seems to reveal more clearly the second or transitional phase in the history of the wedding contract; for the bride-price is paid to the woman. It provides that in case a man sell his daughter into servitude, and the purchaser "allow his son to cohabit with her, let him (the son) marry her: and let him see that she have raiment, and that which is the worth of her maidhood, that is the weotuma; let him give her that."[869] [867] INE, 31: LIEBERMANN, _Gesetze_, 103. The phrase "and sio (seo) gyft (gift) forth ne cume" was rendered by SCHROEDER, _Güterrecht_, I, 51 n. 8, followed by SCHMID, _Gesetze_, 34, 35, note, "if the purchase price be not paid"--a manifest error. _Cf._ THORPE, _Ancient Laws_, I, 123. [868] ÆLFRED, 18: LIEBERMANN, _Gesetze_, 58-61. _Cf._ THORPE, _op. cit._, I,73; SCHMID, _op. cit._, 81, 83; YOUNG, in _Essays_, 170. [869] ÆLFRED, _Ecc. Laws_, 12: THORPE, _op. cit._, I, 47. But ÆLFRED, _op. cit._, 29, seems to show that the older practice of payment to the father also existed: THORPE, I, 52.