It will be only necessary here to add that his course in Philadelphia has been under strict observance of those make this appeal and defence. They are willing to show any inquirers who wish an honest explanation, the grounds of this attempt to vindicate his claim to sympathy and respect. His statements in this city, so far from being “various false pretences,” are substantiated by respectable authority, and his character given by a gentleman who says, “I have known him for 30 years, ever since I was a boy, and I never knew a man more injured by being deprived of his liberty and the fruits of his toil, after the contracts for his freedom were, on his part, faithfully fulfilled. He was always sober, industrious, peaceable and polite.” This is briefly his warm and sympathetic language, given to us personally.

No response being given by the Anti-Slavery Editors, the injured man feels compelled to make this statement in contradiction to their “caution,” in which they say they were requested “by his Philadelphia friends to denounce him.” We have no idea that such measures would be endorsed by the noble-minded friends of freedom in the Anti-Slavery Society, if they were acquainted with the particulars which “his friends in Philadelphia” have sought to place before them. There is one individual—the only one known to them who could have made such a request, whose statement in his own hand-writing, is, with other documents, retained as testimony that he threatened thus to publish him, and this, notwithstanding the kindest remonstrance and explanation on his part, previously given in the presence of his friends, who used their efforts also, and took all the blame from the accused, showing where the offence originated, and that no injury was done or intended.

The charge against the accused was that he was going about injuring his character, and retaining a paper of recommendation from him of which he demanded the return. Of both these charges he was entirely innocent. An Anti-Slavery lady, of England, thought proper to call upon this person, whose name we omit, to expostulate with him on account of the charge he had made for board and washing for the accused. This was entirely her own act of kindness, not only unprompted, but without the knowledge of his other friends or himself. She had received the information in reply to her interrogatories of his expenses and the means of his support, without a word or look of complaint.

As to the paper it was detained by THE UNDERSIGNED, to show to some friends as references, the inconsistency of charging the persecuted man with want of truth, and being an imposter as to his family being slaves, when the sole tenor of this paper, dated the 19th of October, was to confirm his identity, with the individual in the printed documents from the New York Standard, and also from his British friends. After sending him with this paper to us, he came himself to manifest his interest in getting a pamphlet published and money subscribed, and at the time he sent it, it was accompanied by his note requesting our efforts in his behalf. A few days, perhaps not more than a week elapsed, till this well meant expostulation of the English lady, changed the whole current of his proceedings. When we expostulated with him as to the date of this paper which he wished to recall before we had made it serve as a reference to vindicate the accused, we asked why did he send him to us as a person worthy of sympathetic aid, if certain letters which he then produced from New York, against him, were then in his possession, and which he now claimed an authority against him. He at first attempted to represent that they were not then received; he afterwards, when the dates were shown him as four and five days previous, said “the truth was because I placed no confidence in the charges they contained.” Now these, with further discrepancies, are only narrated or retained for the removal of aspersions, which must crush his efforts to support himself, and to liberate his beloved and suffering family. That these particulars are reluctantly given in this form, will be evident to all who may read the statement presented before the close of last year, to the Editors in New York, the pacific tone and forbearing expostulations of which, we think, with the exigencies of the can, demanded a reply, other than silence.

In the meantime he had married a slave woman [a free woman of Nassau, Providence Isle in the West Indies, enslaved by T. Pratt, senior, who took her and her parents and sisters to Savannah,] by whom he had two daughters. These all belonged to Mr. PRATT, of Savannah, of whom DIMMOCK speaks very gratefully. PRATT finding that he would be compelled to sell his servants told DIMMOCK, and said he would sell them reasonably to enable him to get some one to buy them who would not send them off. Not having yet learned that his master had deceived him, DIMMOCK went to CARR, told him the case, and solicited his aid to buy his wife and children, telling him that he had some little money,—that it would probably cost $2,000 to make the purchase, and that he would soon give him the balance. At this time he had $1,500, earned in stevedoring, hid away dollar by dollar in a tin case buried in the earth. This sum he carried to CARR, who purchased the family.

When he met Mr. PRATT afterwards, DIMMOCK learned that he had sold the woman and children for $600 only, and had received that sum from CARR and no more, supposing that he was giving the difference between it and their actual value, to the husband and father. Upon his asking CARR what he had done with the $900 balance, the later laughed, told DIMMOCK that he had the money in Bank for him, and to say nothing to anybody, that he and his family were all free now, but to keep it to themselves, and live quietly with him. Thinking they were in reality free, and could not be sent off again among strangers at any man's will, which was what they most dreaded, DIMMOCK and his wife remained under CARR'S “protection,” quite contented for many years. Finally, by representations made to his wife, CARR caused a separation between the parties, and then sold the father to Mr. HUDSON, of Savannah, the wife to Mr. CUMMINGS, and the children,— of whom there were now several,—each to a different purchaser, thus almost hopelessly breaking up the family.

To this time DIMMOCK had carefully concealed from his makers his claim to liberty as a British subject. He foresaw that if it became known to them, they would be likely to sell him off into the interior somewhere, and that then he might bid farewell to all thought of ever regaining his liberty. So long as he could keep in a seaport like Savannah, he knew he could earn and save money, and then his chance of making good his claim to British protection would always be better than if upon an interior plantation isolated from the busy world. But when he found his family broken up, and all of them again in slavery, his heart was crushed, and he became reckless. He had repeatedly sought the protection of the British Consul at Savannah, Mr. MOLYNEAUX, but that functuary refused to interfere in his behalf, apparently fearing to do so, and probably looking upon slavery as a very satisfactory condiiion for a man with a black skin—a theory which he illustrated by himself holding slaves. When HUDSON bought him, DIMMOCK asserted his right to freedom, and told him his story. HUDSON evidently was satisfied with the truth of his statement, and consequently that he was very insecure property to hold; so he sent him to a trader for sale. Mr. DAVIDSON, a liquor dealer near the market in Savannah, became his purchaser. He lived with him two years, when DAVIDSON came to him one day, told him he had heard that he claimed to be a British subject, and asked him what were the facts. He, too, was convinced of the truth of the singular history, and immediately sent him again to a slave-dealer, for sale at a purchaser's risk. Mr. BENJAMIN GARMAN bought him for $550, in order to give DIMMOCK another opportunity to purchase himself. This was a little more than a year ago, since which time the poor fellow has returned the purchase money, and a few days since came on here in the steamer Alabama, lest some new device should be found to deprive him of the liberty he has been forty-five years in pursuit of.

Among the Spanish sailors captured on board the Peacock, with DIMMOCK, was one named MINGO. Between these two, a lasting friendship sprang up, and they have managed to work together during all their many years residence in Savannah. A year ago, by advice of a friend, DIMMOCK took MINGO before a lawyer, who prepared the necessary affidavits setting forth the facts, of his capture and his title to recognition as a British subject. To this MINGO made oath in due form. A day or two afterwards, he was arrested upon the charge of drunkenness, and thrown into prison, where he died very suddenly and mysteriously. The proofs however, are deemed ample to establish DIMMOCK's claim; and his purpose is, if possible, to bring suit to recover damages of CARR and others for his long detention in Slavery. Whatever means he can realize from this source, or from the donations of the charitable, he desires to appropriate to the release from Slavery of his wife and children and grandchildren. His oldest child VIRGINIA, is in Savannah with three children. The next, CHRISTIANA, has one child. The third, ELIZABETH, has two. Besides these, he has a son who belongs to lawyer O'BYRNE, of Savannah, who has befriended DIMMOCK in his recent undertakings.

Since his arrival here, DIMMOCK has called upon the Acting-British Consul to make good his title to protection as a British subject, with a view to prosecuting his oppressors. That official sent him to his counsel, Mr. EDWARDS, who discourages him from attempting to do anything because the case has laid so long. If there is a statute of limitations which deprives a subject of redress for wrong, when he has been prevented by force from calling for it sooner, the British Government will probably announce the fact when this case is brought fairly before them. That DIMMOCK CHARLTON is entitled to redress from some quarter is certain—and the question remains for practical decision who is responsible for it. Either the government of the United States or that of Great Britian is bound by every consideration of humanity and justice to see that he receives some compensation for his life of oppression and cruel wrong.

“Several weeks ago a black man called upon us to ask for aid and advice in getting possession of his grandchild, a little girl of five or six years, who, he said, was somewhere in this city, under the care of two ladies, sisters, by the name of Kerr, and who would, he feared, carry the child back to the South and to slavery, whence they had brought her a few months before. On inquiring further into his and her history, we learned that he had recently arrived hero from Savannah, having purchased his freedom of his master, Mr. Benjamin Garman; that all his kindred about whom he knew anything, wife, children, and grandchildren, were still slaves, except only this little one, now in New York, in the possession of the Misses Kerr; and that, for his own sake as well as hers, he was desirous of securing the child, and placing her where her freedom should be beyond the reach of either accident or hostile design, and where, by his exertions, he could fulfil to her the duties of a parent, and secure for her liberty, at any rate, and happiness as far as it should lie in his power.

“It is hardly necessary to say that this statement was enough to enlist the sympathies and command the active exertions of any one professing to hold either principle or feeling in regard to slavery; but the appeal was irresistible when we came to hear from the man's own lips the romantic and touching history of his own life. To some of our readers, perhaps, this is already familiar, as it was told, at about the time we allude to, in a morning paper in this city. We have delayed relating it, as the less that was said about it publicly, till the fate of the grandchild was decided, the better; and we wished, moreover, to hear what contradiction or corroboration it might call forth, as undoubtedly it would provoke either one or the other within a short period. The event has justified the delay, and we are enabled now to record the story with more entire confidence than we hardly dared feel when we first heard it, while we have the satisfaction also of rounding off the tale with the successful appeal for the freedom of the child, and her restoration to the arms of her grandparent.

“Dimmock Charlton, for by this name he has been known for most of his life, though he has now re-assumed an earlier one, is a native of Africa. One would hardly doubt this who looks upon his intensely black skin, and listened to his broken English, though it may be easy for him to mispronounce or the hearer to misapprehend the name by which he calls his people. He says, however, that he was born in a country called Kissee, on a great river in the interior of Africa— ‘away up on the fresh water.’ He is, he thinks, about fifty-eight years old, and he remembers vividly the first twelve years of his life, when he was called Tallen, and was a wild, untutored. and happy savage, and had never heard of Christian men or nations. But then a war broke out between his own and a neighboring tribe, and his people were conquered, and among the prisoners who were captured and driven to the coast to be sold to the slavers was Tallen.

“They were about thirty days on this journey from Kissee to the sea coast; but once there, and they were huddled by hundreds, some from the tribe of Kissee and some from other tribes equally wretched, on board a Spanish vessel waiting for her cargo. Then came a voyage of three weeks—three weeks of horror. The little savage from the great ‘fresh water’ of Central Africa, who had never heard of civilization, and had never been taught to believe in any other God than Fetish, took now his first step in that great scheme whereby, our Doctors of Divinity teach us, the Heavenly Father is to lead his race to the blessed knowledge of Christian light and life. He met the horrors of the ‘Middle Passage.’ He listened, day and night, to the groans of the dying; he suffered the agonies of thirst and suffocation; he saw his fellow sufferers taken up to be thrown into the sea, and might have envied them the early and easier martyrdom which was accepted as their share in the sacrifice for the redemption of their race. At the end of three weeks, however, the Spaniard was captured by a British cruiser, and she and what was left of her human cargo were taken to England. Unfortunately Tallen cannot recall, if he ever knew, the names of either of these vessels.

“On his arrival in England a pleasant prospect seemed, for a little while, to open before him. On the dispersion of the Africans, it fell to his lot to be put on board the British brig Peacock as a cabin boy, and that vessel soon after sailed on a cruise. The Dr. Southsides, perhaps, will think that it was only returning him into the true path of providential redemption that this happened to be the cruise in which the Peacock fell in with the American schooner Hornet, and in the memorable naval battle which followed that encounter she struck her flag to Captain Lawrence. Tallen or, as he was now called, John Bull, a second time in his short career a prisoner of war, was brought to this country.

“Here he fell in charge of Lieut. (afterwards President) William Henry Harrison, and for some unexplained reason, was taken to Savannah, Ga. In that city he was left with Judge Charlton, until he should be ordered to Washington, to be disposed of with the other prisoners, the crew of the Peacock. Judge Charlton proposed to Lient. Harrison that he should leave the boy with him to be brought up, but this the Lieutenant declined, as being a prisoner he was not within his control. Two months subsequently he sent to the Judge for his charge, and received for answer that the boy had died of the fever. Such was the statement made to John Bull by an old servant of Judge Charlton, named Isaac, and subsequent events seem to verify it.

“The Lieutenant, John Bull never new or heard from, again; but at about the time that he must, if the statement be true, have been sent for to go to Washington, and when the Judge returned him as dead of fever, he—the Judge—called together his servants, and announced to them that it was his pleasure that hereafter the boy should no longer be known as ‘John Bull,’ but thence forward be called by that same which belonged to himself; and he incited them to remember his orders by that incentive which slaveholders usually supply to their slaves—the threat of the cowhide. Thereafter ‘John Bull’ was known only as Dimmock Charlton, and by that name he has gone ever since.

“As Judge Charlton was, during his lifetime, a very well known person, a man of high standing and great respectability, a lawyer of some eminence, an author of one or two law books, and one against whom we, at least, never heard any thing worse than that he published a volume of most dreary rhymes, it may seem incredible that he could be guilty of so despicable a crime as is here laid to his charge.*

*Judge Charlton was very intemperate.

[The following testimonials are appended in support of Dimmock Charlton's good character. For obvious reasons the signature to the last one is omitted. Many others are in his possession, voluntarily given by those who had known him in Savannah, Ga., New York, London, Eng., and other places:]