We come now to consider the opinion of Feuerbach; and we shall do it the more carefully, because in it, we feel confident, lies the true solution of the question.  He was at the time President of the Court of Appeal of the Circle of Rezat.  He had risen to this honorable position gradually, and it was the reward of his distinguished merit alone.  His works on criminal jurisprudence, and the penal code which he drew up for the kingdom of Bavaria, and which was adopted by other states, had placed him in the first rank of criminal lawyers.  It was he who conducted the first judicial investigations concerning Caspar Hauser.  He was, therefore, intimately acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, and had ample opportunity to form a deliberate opinion.  How the idea originated, that Caspar Hauser belonged to the House of Baden, it is difficult to say.  Feuerbach never published it to the world.  In his book on Caspar Hauser he makes no mention of it; but in 1832 he addressed a paper to Queen Caroline of Bavaria, headed, “Who might Caspar Hauser be?” in which he endeavors to show that he was the son of the Grand-Duchess Stephanie.  This paper was, we believe, first published in 1852, in his “Life and Works,” by his son.[D] The first part of it treats of Caspar’s rank and position in general, and he comes to the following conclusions.  Caspar was a legitimate child.  Had he been illegitimate, less dangerous and far easier means would have been resorted to for concealing his existence and suppressing a knowledge of his parentage.  And here we may add, that the supposition has never prevailed that he was the offspring of a criminal connection, and that these means were taken for suppressing the mother’s disgrace.  A note which Caspar brought with him, when he appeared at Nuremberg, indicated that such was the case, but it was so evidently a piece of deception that it never obtained much credit.  The second conclusion at which Feuerbach arrives is, that people were implicated who had command of great and unusual means,—­means which could prompt an attempt at murder in a crowded city and in the open day, and which could over-bribe all rewards offered for a disclosure.  Third, Caspar was a person on whose life or death great interests depended, else there would not have been such care to conceal his existence.  Interest, and not revenge or hate, was the motive.  He must have been a person of high rank.  To prove this, Feuerbach refers to dreams of Caspar’s.  On one occasion, particularly, he dreamt that he was conducted through a large castle, the appearance of which he imagined that he recognized, and afterwards minutely described.  This Feuerbach thinks was only the awakening of past recollections.  It would be interesting to know whether any palace corresponding to the description given exists.  In the absence of such knowledge, this point of Feuerbach’s argument appears a rather weak one.  From the above propositions he concludes that Caspar was the legitimate child of princely parents, who was removed in order to open the succession to others, in whose way he stood.