Gillies was exasperated. He could not believe that Wollaston had any doubt that the prohibition on religious instruction included divine worship. 'It is absurd to suppose that Mr Wollaston has any serious doubt whether conducting Divine Worship is included under that term', he wrote. Not so, Edward answered. 'In reply I can but repeat my assurance that I had no idea that my action was contrary to law, nor that Divine Worship had any connection with religious instruction.' Astonishingly, the Department then directed Edward's attention, not to its own correspondence with him, but to their letter addressed to James Campbell, 'which we understand was forwarded to and received by him [i.e. Wollaston].' In this letter, Gillies clearly set out the Department's interpretation of the 12th Section of the Act, and the Minister was therefore at a loss to understand how Wollaston could still claim that he acted in ignorance. To ensure Edward was fully aware of the contents of the Campbell letter, the Department attached a copy. At the same time, Wilson Brown approached Campbell to ensure that he had forwarded the Minister's letter of 20 May to Wollaston. 'Perfectly correct', Campbell scrawled across one corner, 'I addressed the letter personally to Mr Wollaston.' Campbell also took the liberty of informing Edward Wollaston of Cabinet discussions in which it emerged that Gillies had acted without consultation, that Premier Service endorsed the view that Wollaston should have had opportunity to defend himself, and that a majority of the government were opposed to Gillies's actions.

A key document in the 'Wollaston Affair', dated 6 October 1884. G Wilson Brown, Secretary to the Minister, anxiously checks that information regarding divine worship in schools, written in his letter to the Hon. James Campbell MLC, has been passed on to Wollaston. The memorandum shows the convoluted route by which Wollaston was made aware of his 'disobedience'. PROV, VPRS 892/P0, Unit 84, Special Case 894

Edward was prompt and honest in his reply. He acknowledged that he had received the copy of the Department's letter to Campbell with his own, private correspondence to Campbell attached. He admitted that he had earlier enlisted Campbell to obtain, as one politician to another, a personal opinion from Gillies on the 12th Section of the Act. Campbell had indeed forwarded a letter addressed to himself and signed by the Secretary and had added a personal note that 'he had not had time to look up the Act in order to endorse (or otherwise) the opinion of the Minister'. Unfortunately Edward was unable to find these letters amongst his personal papers. However, he maintained that the words 'or Church service', which appeared in the Campbell letter, were either omitted from the copy received by him, or overlooked by himself, his wife, and the work mistress at the school, all of whom had closely examined the correspondence. Again the Minister erupted. Rather than serving as an explanation, Edward's words were considered inflammatory, a further deliberate insult to the Minister. He was directed to withdraw his assertion that 'Church service' was omitted from his copy of the Campbell letter, for this was an imputation upon the credit of the Department. Edward responded immediately. He was dismayed that his own admission formed the basis of the Department's case against him of deliberate disobedience. He admitted that he had been instructed not to take religious instruction but he had conducted divine worship in the school building owing to the illness of the regular preacher. He maintained, correctly, that he had no official access to the correspondence of the Postmaster General, and no letter addressed directly to him by the Department ever included the words 'Church service'. Moreover, as the significant letter was personally addressed to Campbell, it is quite likely that Wollaston did not directly connect the phrase to himself, or to any actions that he would take three months into the future.

The matter was not allowed to rest. On 23 September a petition in support of Wollaston, signed by the residents of Campbelltown, was sent to the Minister. The petitioners asked for remission of the imposed fine and protested that Mr Wollaston only consented to conduct divine worship at their earnest request as the officiating minister had failed to arrive.³² They were informed unsympathetically that in view of the importance of maintaining proper discipline in the Department the Minister felt himself unable to remit or reduce the fine imposed.³³ The Department was further insulted by the public collection of a penny subscription to cover Edward's fine. A wealthy benefactor, SJ King, innocently enquired if the Department would agree to Wollaston personally receiving this money. Minister Gillies was outraged: 'The Minister can only regard this request as an insult and to express his surprise that a gentleman in your position should be guilty of such a proceeding.' Calmly, King replied that bad laws should be changed: 'The public having raised the money as a protest against a law that required amending, I sought your permission as the provisions of the Civil Service Act forbid his receiving without your permission.'³⁴

There are countless cases of teachers who were disciplined in similar language to that experienced by Wollaston. The Education Department had to appear efficient and the 1872 Act implemented. Discipline had to be exerted and obedience maintained. An unusually articulate and energetic voice, Wollaston was able to use his contacts in local and state newspapers, utilise his social and family networks, and take his case to parliament to seek justice. 'The whole press of the colony took the matter up and out of twenty six leading articles written on "The Wollaston Case", twenty four condemned the Minister's treatment of me.'³⁵ He obtained legal opinion from David Gaunson MLA, who supported his position. Gaunson was a notorious and colourful figure, an associate of Bent's and counsel in defence of Ned Kelly in 1880. His opinion was that if rent was paid to the Department for the use of the school building on Sundays, it was constituted as a church at that time. Moreover, on Sundays, Wollaston was 'untrammelled as a State School teacher'; he was a private person, free to do as he wished.³⁶ Edward's cousin, HN Wollaston, then Collector of Customs, was of the same opinion and added that there was no authority to inflict a penalty under Section 12 of the Act.³⁷ Despite these arguments, the Department and succeeding ministers remained unmoved. Their position as members of government made them responsible for implementing the law and punishing any disobedience on the part of their officers. 'I had his own admission of the offence before me: what more did I want?' demanded Gillies to his own Cabinet.³⁸ Wollaston's protestations of innocence were always in vain.