[Footnote 616: _Ibid._, iv., 5377, 5438; _Sp. Cal._, iii., 276, 327.] [Footnote 617: _L. and P._, iv., 3217. See this point discussed in Taunton's _Cardinal Wolsey_, chap. x.] But all this legal argument might be invalidated by the brief. (p. 220) It was useless to proceed with the trial until the promoters of the suit knew what the brief contained. According to Mendoza, Catherine's "whole right" depended upon the brief, a statement indicating a general suspicion that the bull was really insufficient.[618] So the winter of 1528-29 and the following spring were spent in efforts to get hold of the original brief, or to induce Clement to declare it a forgery. The Queen was made to write to Charles that it was absolutely essential to her case that the brief should be produced before the legatine Court in England.[619] The Emperor was not likely to be caught by so transparent an artifice. Moreover, the emissary, sent with Catherine's letter, wrote, as soon as he got to France, warning Charles that his aunt's letter was written under compulsion and expressed the reverse of her real desires.[620] In the spring of 1529 several English envoys, ending with Gardiner, were sent to Rome to obtain a papal declaration of the falsity of the brief. Clement, however, naturally refused to declare the brief a forgery, without hearing the arguments on the other side,[621] and more important developments soon supervened. Gardiner wrote from Rome, early in May, that there was imminent danger of the Pope revoking the case, and (p. 221) the news determined Henry and Wolsey to relinquish their suit about the brief, and push on the proceedings of the legatine Court, so as to get some decision before the case was called to Rome. Once the legates had pronounced in favour of the divorce, Clement was informed, the English cared little what further fortunes befel it elsewhere. [Footnote 618: _Sp. Cal._, iii., 882.] [Footnote 619: _L. and P._, iv., 4841.] [Footnote 620: _Ibid._, iv., 5154, 5177, 5211 (ii.); _Sp. Cal._, iii., 877, 882.] [Footnote 621: _L. and P._, iv., 5474. Yet there is a letter from Clement to Campeggio (_Cotton MS._, Vitellius, B, xii., 164; _L. and P._, iv., 5181) authorising him "to reject whatever evidence is tendered in behalf of this brief as an evident forgery". Clement was no believer in the maxim _qui facit per alium facit per se_; he did not mind what his legates did, so long as he was free to repudiate their action when convenient.]