and in August 1664 ousted the Dutch from the possession of the New Netherlands and their settlement of New Amsterdam, which in English hands became New York. He then returned to England, where, in consequence of the representations of the Dutch, he was committed to the Tower pending an examination into the incidents of his voyage (ib. 9 Jan.; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 23 Jan., 14 Feb. 1664–5). Meantime the Dutch had sent Ruyter with a strong squadron to the coast of Africa, where he recaptured the forts taken by Holmes, and, crossing to the West Indies, made many prizes. Letters of reprisal were issued by both nations, and the examination of Holmes was naturally not very severe. He drew up a detailed narrative, supporting his principal statements by formal depositions, and showed that his instructions warranted his conduct. On 6 March 1664–5 he was released from arrest (ib.; Pepys, 14 March), and on 23 March he received ‘a general pardon and release for all felonies and offences in England or elsewhere.’ The blame of the war which followed is frequently laid on Holmes. If his narrative be true, he acted with judgment, prudence, skill, and courage. The facts, however, as described by Valkenburg, the Dutch governor of Elmina, on whom Holmes laid the chief blame, are scarcely to be recognised as the same (State Papers, Dom. Charles II, cxiv. 19, 20, 68; Brandt, Vie de Ruyter, p. 245). It can only be said that Holmes had not the temptation to attack the Dutch that Valkenburg had to attack the English, and his evidence is at least as trustworthy.
Holmes was now appointed captain of the Revenge, one of the white squadron, under Rupert, in the action off Lowestoft on 3 June 1665. On the strength of his reputation here acquired he requested to be promoted to the flag of rear-admiral of the white, vacant by the death of Sansum. The Duke of York refused, and gave the flag to Harman [see HARMAN, Sir JOHN], on which Holmes handed his commission to the duke, who tore it up. Prince Rupert, it is said, had, by the duke's desire, endeavoured to dissuade Holmes from this step; but he ‘would do it, like a rash, proud coxcomb. He is rich, and sought an occasion of leaving the service’ (PEPYS, 16 June; Coventry to Arlington, 13 June, Cal. State Papers, Dom.). Yet early in the following year the duke appointed Holmes to the Defiance, a ship still on the stocks, which was launched on 27 March. The king, with the duke and Prince Rupert, was present at the ceremony, and conferred on Holmes the honour of knighthood. When the fleet was remodelled on 30 May, Holmes was nominated rear-admiral of the red (State Papers, Dom. Charles II, clvii. 57), over the head of Harman, who remained rear-admiral of the white. In the great fight of four days (1–4 June) Holmes was said to have displayed the greatest gallantry, ‘to have done wonders’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 5, 7 June). Apparently the Defiance sustained such damage as to render it necessary for her to be sent in to refit, and Holmes hoisted his flag on board the Henry.
In the fight of St. James's day, 25 July, the Henry, having lost her top-masts, hauled to windward out of the line to repair damages; and meantime the red and white squadrons, having forced the opposing van and centre of the enemy to bear up, followed them to leeward in a running fight which lasted all through the next day. In the rear the battle was more obstinately contested, and Holmes, when again ready for action, took his place in the blue squadron. In the afternoon of the 26th the Dutch rear, being also put to the run, was chased towards the coast of Holland. As night closed in they had sighted the main body of the English fleet, and ought to have been driven into it; but the admiral of the blue squadron, Sir Jeremy Smyth [q. v.], on the advice of his pilot that they were getting into dangerous navigation, hauled to the wind and gave up the pursuit, thus permitting the flying enemy to escape from what seemed certain destruction (State Papers, Dom. Charles II, clxv. 1, 2). Holmes, still with the blue squadron, was indignant. It is said that he fired guns at Smyth's ship to compel him to renew the chase, and that he called Smyth a coward publicly in the presence of the generals (ib. 41). The matter was reported to the king, who ordered a court-martial to be held (5 Aug. 1666; ib. clxvi. 86). It seems to have referred the question back to the king, who acquitted Smyth of cowardice, but reprimanded him for having ‘too easily yielded to the single opinion of his pilot’ (ib. Entry Book, xxiii. 264). It was reported that Holmes and Smyth fought a duel, which was probably true, and that Holmes was killed, which was certainly false (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1 Nov.; Pepys, 31 Oct. 1666). According to Pepys the quarrel extended in the fleet; the Duke of Albemarle supported Smyth, while Rupert favoured Holmes, ‘an idle, proud, conceited, though stout, fellow;’ and officers and men ranged themselves on one side or the other, to the utter subversion of effective discipline (ib. 20, 29 Oct. 1666; 3 April 1668). It appears certain that the discipline of the fleet did at this time become very bad, and partly perhaps from this cause; but the non-payment
