The April 1777 Loyalist Conspiracy of Peter Lawsing (alias Funk) in Fishkill, NY

Peter Lawsing (alias Funk): Background

Peter Lawsing – also known by the alias Peter Funk – was a resident of the Fishkill area of Dutchess County, New York, during the Revolutionary War. Contemporary records suggest he was a local farmer or tradesman with Loyalist sympathies. The use of an alias hints at family or ethnic origins (for instance, "Funck" is a Germanic surname) and may indicate ties to the region’s Palatine German or Dutch communities. Lawsing had familial connections to other known Loyalists; notably, his father-in-law was Captain William “Jeecocks” (possibly Jaycocks or Jacocks), who himself was suspected of aiding the Tory cause. This family link would later prove significant, as Jeecocks offered material support for Lawsing’s plans. By April 1777, Peter Lawsing had become the ringleader of a clandestine effort to rally disaffected neighbors and guide them to British lines in New York City.

Recruitment of Neighbors in Fishkill

In mid-April 1777, Lawsing began quietly recruiting local compatriots to abandon the Patriot cause and flee behind British lines. One of those he approached was Ferdinand Van Sicklen, a neighbor in Fishkill. Van Sicklen later testified that about two weeks before April 22, as he passed Lawsing’s farm, Lawsing called him into the barn and “informed him of his intentions to go off to the Enemy, and ask’d the [deponent] to go with him.” Van Sicklen responded that he had once taken up arms for his country and intended to stand by it, though to avoid arousing suspicion he told Lawsing he would “take the matter into consideration”. This cautious reply suggests Van Sicklen was wary; indeed, he would prove unwilling to become a traitor despite Lawsing’s overture.

Lawsing’s recruitment drive did not stop with Van Sicklen. A few days later (on a Saturday), Van Sicklen encountered Lawsing again on the road between their homes and the farm of Thomas Deering. Lawsing was eager for updates and beckoned Van Sicklen over, asking that if he saw a mutual acquaintance – Gideon Byce (sometimes spelled Buyce) – he should send Byce to him. Lawsing excitedly confided that he had “procured two more to go also, to wit, Peter Burnet & Matthew Burnet.” These two Burnet brothers from the area had agreed to join the escape to the British. It appears that news of the plot was spreading among local Tories: By the time Van Sicklen reached Deering’s house, James Deering informed him that Gideon Byce already knew of the Burnets’ involvement and had gone to alert another neighbor, Joseph Simpson, about the scheme. In this way, Lawsing’s plan drew in a small circle of disaffected men, creating a loose band of would-be Loyalist refugees.

The Planned Rendezvous and a "Good Pilot"

As Lawsing’s recruits grew in number, they set a time and place for their departure. Van Sicklen testified that Gideon Byce came to his father’s house the next day (Sunday) and relayed “that they were to meet at John W. Lawsing’s” house for the journey. John W. Lawsing – likely a relative of Peter’s (perhaps his brother or another family member) – thus offered his home as the staging point. Importantly, Byce also mentioned “they had a good Pilot to conduct them” to the British lines. In other words, the conspirators had arranged for a reliable guide familiar with the route through the no-man’s-land of Westchester County and into the British-occupied zone. Such a pilot would have been crucial, as the terrain between Fishkill and New York City was patrolled by Patriot militia and “Cowboys and Skinners” (irregular bands), making it dangerous for Loyalist fugitives. The identity of this pilot is not given in surviving records, but the assurance that he was “good” indicates the group’s confidence in reaching King’s forces undetected.

The rendezvous was scheduled for the night of Tuesday, April 22, 1777, at about 10 or 11 o’clock PM, according to further information Van Sicklen received. In the interim, another of Lawsing’s kinsmen became involved: Hendrick (Henry) Lawsing. On Monday, April 21, Hendrick came to Van Sicklen with an update: the meeting at John Lawsing’s house was confirmed for the next evening. Hendrick Lawsing, however, declared he did not intend to go at present. He explained that his father was his security – meaning Hendrick had been under some form of parole or bond to remain in place, with his father as guarantor – and if he absconded it would ruin his father’s pledge. Hendrick added that “if it was not for the injury it would do his father he would also go”, implying that aside from this personal constraint, he was sympathetic to the plan. This detail illustrates the dilemma of many wavering Loyalists: family obligations and prior oaths sometimes restrained their open defection.

Van Sicklen’s Role and the Burnet Brothers

Ferdinand Van Sicklen occupies a pivotal role in this narrative as both participant (initially) and crucial witness. Van Sicklen was a local man of Dutch descent – his very surname sometimes spelled “Van Siclen” – and notably he described himself as having previously borne arms for the Patriot side. This background suggests he was not a hardened Loyalist; rather, he may have been one of many wavering individuals caught between oaths. When pressed by Lawsing to join the British, Van Sicklen feigned interest but ultimately could not go through with treason.

On the appointed Tuesday night (April 22), Van Sicklen did set out with the group, which included Thomas Brush (another neighbor who had agreed to go) and at least one other man. The commission minutes recount that “the [deponent] (Van Sicklen), Clump & Brush set out with a determination to go to the Enemy, & went down to our lines.” (The name “Clump” here appears to be a mis-transcription or alias for a third companion; possibly this was William “Clum” or even William Manring, as will be discussed later.) They reached the American outposts on the road toward New York. At that critical moment Van Sicklen’s conscience “prick’d him & he resolved to proceed no farther.” He told his companions that having once taken up arms for America and having a wife and children at home, “he never would fight against [his country].” Van Sicklen’s change of heart immediately influenced Thomas Brush: Brush declared that if Van Sicklen was determined to turn back, he would return also. The third man (“Clump”) “made no reply,” suggesting he was inclined to continue alone; nevertheless, “it appeared to [Van Sicklen] that Brush had also remorse & repented of what he had done.” In the end, “the [deponent], Clump & Brush returned” north together. Van Sicklen’s testimony thus implies that the entire sub-party aborted their mission and headed back to Dutchess County that same night, driven by guilt and second thoughts.

Meanwhile, what became of Peter and Matthew Burnet, the brothers recruited by Lawsing? The evidence strongly suggests the Burnets intended to go and likely did proceed separately or later that night. Gideon Byce’s prior message indicated the Burnets were fully committed to fleeing. In fact, when Van Sicklen hesitated at Deering’s, he learned that Gideon Byce had hurried off to inform Joseph Simpson of the Burnets’ involvement, which implies a coordinated departure was in the works. We do not have a direct deposition from the Burnets, but their names disappear from the Committee’s subsequent orders, hinting that they successfully slipped away behind British lines. Van Sicklen’s group encountered evidence of this during their brief foray: as they trekked southward, they stopped at the house of Dr. Belden near Pine’s Bridge (in Westchester County). Dr. Belden was known (at least to Van Sicklen afterward) as a secret Tory sympathizer. He asked the travelers where they were from and whether they had seen any neighbors on the road. Belden remarked that “people from these parts frequently passed that way, & that two of them had been at his house” earlier, describing their appearance. Van Sicklen immediately suspected who those two might be and asked if their names were “Gideon Byce & Peter Funk.” At this, “Doct. Belden smiled,” effectively confirming that Byce and Lawsing (alias Funk) had indeed come through his house on their way south. Belden’s house functioned as “a kind of a Rendezvous for all the Tories that went that way,” according to Van Sicklen’s understanding. This is compelling evidence that Peter Lawsing/Funk and Gideon Byce were ahead of Van Sicklen on the route and likely continued onward that night toward the British lines. The Burnet brothers, if not traveling with Lawsing and Byce, may have followed close behind or taken a different path to avoid notice. Either way, Peter and Matthew Burnet were explicitly named among the conspirators and were “to go also” – their fate after April 1777 was probably exile within the British-held city or service in a Loyalist corps. (Indeed, many Dutchess County Tories who escaped would later turn up in refugee regiments or in Canada after the war.)

Loyalist Unrest in Dutchess and Orange Counties, Spring 1777

The Lawsing conspiracy did not occur in isolation. The spring of 1777 was a tumultuous period in the Hudson Valley, marked by multiple Loyalist plots as British forces prepared major operations. Dutchess County, though generally Patriot-leaning (Fishkill was a key American supply depot and the state’s provisional government met there briefly), had pockets of disaffection. The scheme led by Peter Lawsing was part of a broader pattern of Loyalist unrest across Dutchess and neighboring counties in April 1777.

Evidence from the Committee for Detecting Conspiracies reveals that additional groups of Tories were organizing to flee or rebel around the same time. In his sworn statement, Van Sicklen reported information about a second cluster of Loyalists in Dutchess County: while imprisoned (after his return) he conversed with one Thomas Lawrence, who divulged that Captain William Jeecocks, Simeon LaRoy, Simeon Van Kleeck, and William Yates “were to go off last night or the night before”. In fact, “Simeon LaRoy had been down to the Enemy & had returned again,” acting as a courier or organizer for that group. These were men of some standing – for instance, Simeon Van Kleeck and Capt. Jeecocks were from prominent Dutchess families – whose defection would have been notable. The mention of them planning to depart in secret indicates that Lawsing’s plot was just one node of a larger Loyalist network operating in early 1777. Their plan appears to have been contemporaneous with Lawsing’s, and indeed Thomas Lawrence’s intel suggests coordination or at least parallel timing. (One incident noted was an attempt to apprehend a Loyalist named Medlar, during which William Yates narrowly escaped arrest.) The New York State Convention was well aware of such dangers: on April 18, 1777, as it finalized the new state constitution, the Convention resolved to crack down on Tory conspirators in counties like Albany, Dutchess, Orange, and Ulster, ordering that suspected Loyalists be apprehended and tried swiftly[1]. This reflects how widespread and threatening these simultaneous plots were to Patriot authorities.

In Orange County (just to the south of Dutchess), a parallel Loyalist conspiracy was unfolding in April 1777, often referred to by historians as the “Lawson plot.” In Orange County’s backcountry – particularly around Smith’s Clove, a strategic pass through the Highlands – disaffected inhabitants likewise planned to join the British when the opportunity arose. One contemporary account indicates a Loyalist ringleader named Lawson was active there, recruiting men in concert with an outlaw band. According to later testimony preserved in an Orange County history, a witness traveled part of the way with “Lawson, and a certain John Mason, who was the head of the gang,” before falling ill and turning back at Sidman’s Clove (a pass on the route)[2][3]. This suggests that Lawson’s group – possibly allied with the notorious Claudius Smith’s gang of brigands – was moving through the region at the same time Lawsing’s cadre was mobilizing in Dutchess. The Orange County conspiracy seemingly aimed to rendezvous with British forces expected to push up the Hudson in 1777. Indeed, April 1777 saw British raids in the Hudson Highlands (such as the attack on Peekskill in March and the Danbury raid in Connecticut later in April), which emboldened Loyalists to act. The simultaneous emergence of the Lawson plot in Orange and the Lawsing plot in Fishkill hints at a broader coordinated effort by Hudson Valley Tories to capitalize on British offensives by flocking to the King’s standard. Patriot officials viewed these developments with alarm, as armed Loyalist bands could have assisted the enemy or sabotaged Continental supply lines at a critical moment (New York’s new government was just coming into being, and the Burgoyne invasion from Canada loomed that summer).

Discovery and Investigation by the Commission for Conspiracies

The Committee/Commission for Detecting Conspiracies (often simply called the Commission for Conspiracies) was the New York State body charged with uncovering and thwarting such Loyalist plots. Egbert Benson, a prominent Dutchess County Patriot, and others sat on this board, which convened at Fishkill in the spring of 1777[4]. The exposure of Peter Lawsing’s conspiracy can be pieced together from the minutes of this Commission and depositions given to it. It appears that after Van Sicklen, Brush, and their companion turned back from their attempted flight, they (and perhaps others) were detained by Patriot authorities. Van Sicklen may have voluntarily reported the conspiracy – or he may have been caught and then chose to cooperate. In any case, on April 22, 1777, the Commission (with Benson presiding) examined Ferdinand Van Sicklen under oath. Van Sicklen’s deposition, as detailed above, laid bare the entire recruitment effort and named all the key players. This firsthand testimony was invaluable to the Committee.

Immediately following Van Sicklen’s statement, the Commission took action. They resolved “that a Letter be wrote to Major [Joseph] Strang, requesting him to cause Doct. Belden to be apprehended & sent to this Board forthwith”, vowing to defray the costs. Dr. Belden, the Westchester physician who had smiled at Van Sicklen’s inquiries, was thus identified as an accomplice (or at least an enabler) in the underground Loyalist escape network. The Commission’s order to arrest him shows how Van Sicklen’s evidence was used to pursue leads down the line of the Tory underground railroad.

Next, the Commission moved against those conspirators still within reach. It ordered Captain Bernardus Swartwout to apprehend the suspected ringleaders who had not yet fled: “Capt. Wm. Jeecocks, Simeon LaRoy, Wm. Yates, Henry Lawsing, & Isaac Lawsing”, authorizing him to take whatever force necessary and promising to pay the expenses. This sweeping order, dated April 22, 1777, was effectively a roundup of the Dutchess County Tory cell. Notably, Peter Lawsing (alias Funk) is not on that arrest list – a strong indication that he had already absconded beyond Patriot reach (likely with Gideon Byce and the Burnets). Instead, the names are those of Lawsing’s relatives and confederates left behind. Henry (“Hendrick”) Lawsing and Isaac Lawsing were probably Peter’s family members (perhaps younger brothers or cousins). They had planned to join later or were on the fringes; Henry, as we know, hesitated due to his father’s bond, and Isaac had been overheard by Van Sicklen via Richard Lawsing to be intending to go. Both men were now to be seized before they could act. Similarly, Capt. Jeecocks (Peter’s father-in-law) and the others (LaRoy and Yates) were part of the wider scheme to leave for the enemy according to Van Sicklen’s jailhouse intelligence. The Commission’s swift issuance of arrest warrants demonstrates how seriously they took the threat and how quickly they moved to snuff out the conspiracy’s embers in Dutchess County.

Additionally, Thomas Brush – who had turned back with Van Sicklen – was sworn and examined by the Commission. Brush “admits they set out & returned again in the same manner & for the same reasons mentioned in Van Sicklen’s deposition.” His brief testimony essentially corroborated Van Sicklen’s account on all crucial points. This redundancy gave the Committee further confidence in the truth of the revelations. Brush’s and Van Sicklen’s depositions together provided a full picture of the plot, from initial recruitment to the attempted flight and the names of the conspirators.

Legal Consequences and Aftermath

With the conspiracy foiled before it could fully materialize, the Commission meted out consequences to those involved. Ferdinand Van Sicklen, Thomas Brush, and William Manring (who appears to have been the third man in Van Sicklen’s party, identified in the minutes) were promptly discharged from custody on April 22 after giving evidence. The Committee likely viewed these three as repentant or at least useful informants rather than hardened traitors. Van Sicklen and Brush, having demonstrated loyalty by turning back and by confessing, were spared further punishment. (William Manring’s role is less clear in the narrative – he might have been “Clump” or another minor accomplice – but he too was released, suggesting he cooperated or was found only marginally culpable.)

For the others, the legal repercussions varied. Henry P. Lawsing (Hendrick) was indeed arrested and jailed. The Commission’s minutes in subsequent months indicate Henry gave them trouble: at one point Henry P. Lawsing escaped from confinement, only to be recaptured and returned to jail shortly thereafter. This occurred by order of the Commission (carried out by a Mr. Hull) and was recorded in the minutes, though the exact date is in 1778. Henry’s repeated imprisonment implies he remained a suspected or actual Loyalist agent and was not easily rehabilitated. There is no record of Henry Lawsing being executed, so it is likely he spent a considerable time in jail. Many lesser Loyalists were eventually released on bond or exchanged, and by 1780 some were allowed to enlist in Continental service to prove their renewed allegiance (a common practice), but Henry’s escape attempt suggests he was a die-hard case. Ultimately, what became of Henry is not certain; however, the fact that he was again in custody in mid-1778 shows the Patriots kept a close watch on him.

Isaac Lawsing also presumably faced arrest as ordered. While details of Isaac’s case are sparse in the surviving minutes (his name doesn’t reappear in the transcribed discussions), it’s reasonable to assume he was taken and held. Some conspirators of this sort were released on parole or under surveillance if they showed contrition. If Isaac had a change of heart like Van Sicklen, he too might have been freed on condition of good behavior. In the absence of explicit records, his fate remains unclear, but no known execution or trial for treason of either Lawsing family member is recorded, so harsh punishment was likely avoided.

As for Captain William Jeecocks, Simeon LaRoy, and William Yates, their arrest was ordered due to intelligence tying them to planned flight. Jeecocks, being older and a father-in-law to Peter Lawsing, had even offered financial and material aid (gold “half joes” and lead for bullets) to the cause. This made him quite culpable. If Capt. Jeecocks was caught, he would have been treated as a serious conspirator. It’s possible he was apprehended and later released on bail or kept under house arrest; by 1778, as the war situation evolved, many such local Tories were allowed to live relatively quietly if they pledged neutrality. Simeon LaRoy, noted as a messenger to the British, and Yates (who narrowly avoided capture once) likely went into hiding or fled. The commission minutes note that Yates actually escaped detection during an incident with a guard – a Patriot patrol captured a Loyalist named Medlar but did not realize Yates was present, allowing him to slip away. If Yates or LaRoy evaded arrest in April 1777, they may have eventually made it to New York City. There is evidence that Gideon Byce did just that: the Commission was informed soon after that “Gideon Byce had made his escape.” Byce’s escape, recorded in the minutes, presumably means he successfully reached British lines and was beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction. Peter Lawsing (Funk) almost certainly escaped as well, since he was never caught by the Patriots. Both men likely joined the Loyalist refuge on Manhattan. (Some exiles from Dutchess joined Loyalist militia or units like the King’s American Regiment or Brant’s Volunteers later in the war, though specific records of Lawsing/Funk are scarce.)

In the larger picture, those Loyalists from Dutchess and Orange who were caught in 1777 generally faced prison or the threat of trial for treason. However, New York’s Revolutionary authorities often hesitated to execute locals for treason unless they had committed violence. Instead, they relied on imprisonment, parole, or banishment. For example, some prisoners (like one George Mitchell in the Fishkill jail) were given the option to “Voluntarily Inlist[] into the Continental Army” for a set term in exchange for freedom. In the Fishkill conspiracies’ wake, a number of minor players and suspicious persons were indeed pressed into Continental service or kept in custody until they could prove their allegiance. It is telling that by late 1778, the Commission was still busy scouring the countryside for straggling Tories: militia patrols under officers like Captain William Calkin were “scouring the woods & apprehending a number of prisoners” in the region, indicating that sporadic Loyalist activity continued and was actively suppressed.

For Peter Lawsing (alias Funk), the ultimate consequence came in absentia. In October 1779, New York State passed an Act of Attainder against prominent Loyalists who had fled to the enemy. While primary lists of attainted persons do not commonly cite Lawsing by that spelling, it is possible he was included under a variant name or simply lost his property for having “adhered to the enemies of this State.” Many Loyalists from Dutchess had their lands confiscated and sold at auction in the early 1780s[5]. If Lawsing ever attempted to return after the war, he would have found himself legally proscribed (banished) under pain of arrest. Most likely, however, he never came back, joining the stream of Loyalist refugees who relocated to Canada or other British territories once the Revolution ended.

In summary, the April 1777 Loyalist conspiracy around Fishkill led by Peter Lawsing alias Funk was quickly unveiled and thwarted by Patriot authorities. Through the testimony of insiders like Van Sicklen and Brush, the Commission for Detecting Conspiracies identified the network of neighbors plotting to defect. The planned midnight rendezvous at John Lawsing’s house – with its “good pilot” ready to guide the escapees – never saw the full company assemble; instead, some (Lawsing, Byce, the Burnets) fled immediately, while others lost their nerve or were rounded up. The event unfolded against a backdrop of widespread Loyalist ferment in the Hudson Valley at a critical juncture of the war. Thanks to prompt investigation, the Fishkill conspiracy was neutralized without bloodshed. Those who repented (like Van Sicklen) were spared, those who persisted (like Henry Lawsing) languished in jail, and the ringleader and his closest followers vanished into British-held New York. The episode underscored the vigilance of local Patriot committees in spring 1777 and foreshadowed the harsher treatment (attainder and exile) that awaited unreconstructed Loyalists in New York as the Revolution progressed.

Bibliography (Chicago Style)

• New York (State) Committee and Commission for Detecting Conspiracies. Minutes of the Committee and of the First Commission for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies in the State of New York, December 11, 1776 – September 23, 1778, with Collateral Documents. Vol. I. New York: Published for the New-York Historical Society, 1924. (Especially pages 258–260 for Van Sicklen’s deposition on April 22, 1777, and pages 259–260, 287 for related resolutions and depositions).
• Ruttenber, Edward Manning, and L. H. Clark. History of Orange County, New York. Philadelphia: Everts & Peck, 1881. (See Revolutionary period chapter for references to the simultaneous Lawson–Mason Loyalist plot in Orange County’s Smith’s Clove in 1777)[6].
• New York State (Provincial) Convention. Resolutions of April 1777. In Alexander C. Flick, Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution (New York: Columbia University, 1901), Appendix. (Addresses the prosecution of loyalists in Orange, Dutchess, etc., in April 1777)[1].
• Commission for Detecting Conspiracies (Fishkill), Depositions and Orders, April 1777. Manuscript excerpts in New York State Archives (Albany), Microfilm M1078. (Testimony of Ferdinand Van Sicklen and Thomas Brush, and orders for arrest of Lawsing conspirators, April 22, 1777).
• Documents Relating to the Sale of Confiscated Estates in Dutchess County. Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook 1982, pp. 91–100. (Contains information on Loyalist estate forfeitures, possibly including associates of Peter Lawsing alias Funk.)

[1] Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution

https://archives.gnb.ca/exhibits/forthavoc/html/NYLoyalism.aspx?culture=en-CA

[2] [6] [PDF] History of Orange County, New York - Wikimedia Commons

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/History_of_Orange_County%2C_New_York_%28IA_cu31924028832693%29.pdf

[3] Full text of "History of Orange County, New York" - Internet Archive

https://archive.org/stream/historyoforangec00rut/historyoforangec00rut_djvu.txt

[4] Minutes of the Committee and of the first Commission for detecting ...

https://archive.org/download/minutesofcommitt571newy/minutesofcommitt571newy.pdf

[5] [PDF] Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook Subject Index 1914 ...

https://dchsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Yearbook-Index-1914-to-2019-eff-March-2020.pdf