"Paracide - man and wife poisoned by arsenic supposed to have been administered by their own daughter", so read the front page headline in the Preston Chronicle on 19th May , 1827.

The report went on to recount the particulars of the dreadful catastrophe. The victims in the torrid affair were man and wife, John and Mary Scott.

The couple kept a small shop in Bridge Street and had living with them a daughter named Jane. She was 21-years-old and well known for her "depraved and dissolute conduct" and over the years had caused them much anxiety. She was already the mother of two illegitimate children, the last of which had died about two months before the incident. The child's death had been so sudden that suspicions were now entertained that the daughter may have also contrived to that death.

On Monday evening, 14th May 1827, it was reported that the parents of the girl had taken ill after eating part of some porridge that the daughter had prepared for their supper. Within a short time means were taken to revive them but the poison, mixed with the porridge, was too powerful. The mother died at about three o'clock the following morning and her husband passed away a couple of hours later.

Jane Scoot, their daughter, was subsequently charged with the murder of both parents and sent for trial at Lancaster Assizes, where she was firstly tried with the crime against her father, who had been well-known as a traveler for the cotton industry.

Amazingly, despite what seemed overwhelming evidence against her Scott was acquitted by the jury. Mr Justice Bayley then gave her the option of being tried upon the second charge immediately, or of waiting until the next Assizes. She chose the latter and towards the end of March, 1828 she appeared on the charge of murdering her mother.

Once again Mr Justice Bayley was assigned to the trial but felt some repugnance at having the girl before him again on a similar charge, he prevailed upon Mr Baron Hullock to take the case on this occasion.

As the jury was about to be sworn in the prisoner requested that "no person from Preston or the neighbourhood be put upon it". Once selected the jury was then instructed to dismiss from their minds any previous knowledge they may have had concerning the case.

The trail followed much the same pattern as the first one had and evidence was stacked-up against the girl. A druggist from Preston recounted how two months before the death of her parents, the accused had visited his shop for a quarter of an ounce of arsenic to poison rats. On two further occasions she returned for more arsenic saying that she had not quite destroyed all the rats. The last occasion was just three days before her parents' death. At the time the druggist warned her that it was a deadly poison. Her answer was that she intended to put some into whitewash to destroy bugs.

On the night of the deaths it was stated that a local surgeon Dr. Brown, had attended the unfortunate couple. He recalled how he had instructed the accused to retain the pan which contained the remains of the porridge but when he later enquired for the pan it had been washed out and all the porridge removed.

An acquaintance of hers, George Richardson, told how a week before the death of her parents, Jane Scott had talked to him about marriage. When he told her he had no money to buy furniture, she had told him that soon she would have everything they needed and also told him that her father would be signing over whatever they needed. She also said that if she had a mind to, she could have whatever she wanted.

Towards the end of the trial the defence attempted to call into evidence the verdict of acquittal from the previous Assizes, but this proposal was dismissed by Baron Hullock, who emphasized that she was being tried on this indictment only.

The jury retired and deliberated for some twenty minutes before returning to pronounce a "Guilty" verdict. An awful silence then fell upon the court and the prisoner realizing her situation, was greatly affected. She appealed to His Lordship to extend his mercy by ‘transporting' her and thus sparing her life.

His Lordship then addressed her stating it was out of his power to alter the sentence of the law fixed as a punishment for the crime. He then announced that she "be taken tot he place from where she came and from there to the place of execution on Saturday next, and there hang by the neck until dead, and afterwards the body to be taken down and dissected and anatomized". She wept in great agony while the judge addressed her, and with a slow and tottering pace left the bar.

Many persons from Preston wished to witness her execution (Public hanging was by far the most popular spectator 'sport', at this time!) And on March 22nd, 1828 many set off for Lancaster in the middle of the night. The churchyard and every place which afforded a view of the scaffold was crowded to excess. Indeed according to the oldest inhabitants of Lancaster the crowd was greater than on any similar occasion. At midnight the execution party appeared and positioned themselves around the scaffold. Shortly afterwards the condemned woman appeared and walked to the gallows supported by two female attendants. To all appearances she seemed more dead than alive and opened her eyes only as she reached the outside of the castle, she did not appear conscious of her fate.

Once on the scaffold, the executioner slipped the noose around her neck and drew the cap over her face. The Chaplain read part of the burial service as the two women supported her. She then fell back to the extremity of the rope, with her face to the crowd and was launched into eternity.

The execution of Jane Scott was carried out by Edward Barlow commonly called ‘Old Ned'. A Welshman, Edward Barlow was said to be as great a villain as any he put to death.