Edward was incredulous. First he chided the Department for responding to a letter clearly intended for the Board of Advice: 'I regret the mistake the more in that, from the tenor of your letter, it would appear that the fact was overlooked that I was addressing the correspondent of the Board of Advice'.²³ Then he applied for further information on the Department's interpretation of the 1872 Act. In his view, the Department's position was a 'strained' one. He was aware of the section relating to religious instruction in state schools but he did not know that 'such a strict interpretation could be made'. Weren't teachers free on Sundays from their responsibilities as employees of the Department? Were state school teachers barred 'from religious liberty outside of, as well as within, the hours in which they were in the employ of the State?' In the absence of this knowledge, he said he had already taught Sunday School in state school buildings for the last six years, as had scores of other teachers throughout the colony. He went on to inform the Secretary that he had already made contact with Mr Duncan Gillies, Minister of Public Instruction, had laid the whole matter before him, and was awaiting his advice. A stern reply from the Secretary instructed him to correspond through the proper channels and advised that the Minister entirely concurred with his own Department's view. There was no 'strained interpretation of the Act' involved; and their advice simply gave effect to the deliberate intention of the legislature as it was passed by the Parliament.²⁴ For the time being, Edward obeyed his instructions. He taught Sunday School, not in his own school but at nearby Glendower Station, walking two miles each Sunday to bring the gospel to the children. The matter might have rested there, but two events occurred that together set in motion a chain of events that became known as the 'Wollaston Case'. Edward wrote a letter; and a visiting preacher was ill.

In May 1884, Edward wrote a private letter expressing his thoughts on religious instruction in schools to his friend, the Honourable James Campbell MLC, Postmaster General and a prominent Methodist with business connections to Ballarat. Knowing from past discussions with Campbell that their opinions were identical, it is likely Edward was extremely frank in his views. Both men probably agreed that Bible reading would inevitably be reintroduced as part of the state school curriculum. Years later, in a letter to the Ballarat Courier, Wollaston enthusiastically supported the introduction of Bible reading into schools by teachers 'who daily feel that our earnest endeavors at turning out good men and women are sadly crippled and hampered by our inability to go to the Scriptures for both authority and example'.²⁵ Edward was keen to enlist Campbell's help in obtaining the true thoughts of Minister Gillies on the subject of religious instruction in state schools and he invited Campbell to add any ideas of his own that might be useful. However, Campbell proved most unhelpful in advancing Edward's case. Inexplicably, 'by some unaccountable error of judgement',²⁶ or perhaps because he wished to draw Wollaston's well-drawn arguments to the Department's attention, he simply passed Edward's letter on to G Wilson Brown, Secretary of the Department, who in turn submitted it to the Minister. As one politician to another, Gillies courteously replied to Campbell: 'There is no objection to Mr Wollaston conducting a Sunday school or Church service [author's italics] provided that the meetings are not held in a State school building'.²⁷ This letter, with Edward's private correspondence attached, was then returned to Campbell. There is no written evidence that the Minister or the Secretary instructed Campbell to pass this advice on to Wollaston. If there was any arrangement between the two politicians, and it seems there was, it must have been verbal. All official correspondence from the Department to Wollaston refers only to the ban on religious instruction by Departmental employees in state school buildings. The Minister's letter to Campbell is the only time the phrase 'or Church service' appears in their correspondence, a point vital to understanding the following damaging events.

The residents of Campbelltown continued their quest for religious worship on Sundays. Over the next three months, correspondence took place between John Pritchard, Correspondent for the Board of Advice, and the Department of Education, requesting permission for the Reverend Bettus, a Bible Christian Minister based in Clunes, to conduct public worship and Sunday classes each alternate Sunday in the Campbelltown State School building. Edward Wollaston, as head teacher, was informed of this decision and helpfully wrote to the Department to inform them that Reverend Bettus had commenced his Sunday services on 31 August 1884. Further, he went on, on the previous Sunday, 7 September, he had had to take the service himself, for 'neither that gentleman nor his assistant appeared at the appointed hour. In consequence of this, I was urgently solicited by the congregation to officiate. I undertook the responsibility and now take the first opportunity of reporting the matter to the Department'. While he had been prohibited from giving religious instruction, he continued, he was anxious to know if officiating at a church service was within Departmental guidelines. 'I am desirous of knowing if, in conducting Divine Worship, I am acting with the consent of the Department'.²⁸

On receipt of this letter and in the light of his previous advice to Wollaston, Minister Gillies erupted! 'The law on the subject which was already sufficiently clear to so many persons has been specially explained to Mr Wollaston. He shouldn't act in violation of it and should be fined therefore. ... Any repetition of the offence will be visited with suspension from duty.'²⁹ Wilson Brown was directed to write the censure to Wollaston:

I am directed by the Honorable, the Minister of Public Instruction to whom your communication has been submitted to inform you that he regards this question as a piece of distinct insolence and he has decided to inflict a fine of Five Pounds (£5) for your deliberate disobedience of instructions.³⁰

Edward was shocked. To him, the prohibition on religious instruction of children, which was at the heart of the drafting of the Education Act, did not include divine worship for families. He had reported his actions to the Department in order to seek Ministerial guidance; he had not willingly reported himself for deliberate disobedience! 'The Minister is in error in supposing that I have been guilty of "deliberate disobedience to instructions" in conducting Divine Worship as I had received no instructions on the subject', he replied.³¹ As he wrote, he noted that the Department's instructions of 16 May lay open in front of him on his desk. The letter only referred to religious instruction, 'and the offence for which I am to be fined lies in the fact that I acted in an unforeseen emergency in the absence of instruction'.