in February 1958 that, when the school was built, Eastbourne's council should subsidise half the cost of Eastbourne pupils travelling into Bexhill. In March, however, the council's Education Committee voted by a majority of eight to six to cover the whole cost of pupils' fares. This decision followed a letter from the archdiocesan secretary responsible for education (at his time, Eastbourne and Bexhill both fell within an archdiocese–the Archdiocese of Southwark–as Arundel and Brighton had yet to be created). Yet, this was not the end of the episode. On 1 April, Eastbourne council's Finance Committee urged the main chamber to reconsider their U-turn. Concerned over the cost to ratepayers, the Finance Committee argued the council should only pay for half of pupils' fares. Travel for a single child would have cost 2s6d a week. Finally, on 8 April, the council agreed with the Finance Committee and voted by a majority of twenty to five to subsidise only half of any future pupils' fares. Another vote, which passed by fourteen to eleven, allowed for families in 'hardship' to claim for a 100 p/c subsidy on rail fares. This proved controversial as some interpreted the vote to contradict contemporary directives issued by the Ministry of Education (whereby full fares, in that instance, could be paid). It was feared that many local Catholics simply could not afford the cost–and that many would be too proud to go 'cap in hand' to the council and plead 'hardship'. Some believed the decision was reached because of the denominational nature of the new school. Indeed, the council paid for the entire fares of other pupils travelling similar distances. So, prior to the elections of May, the same year, local Cannon J J Curtin took the issue to the pulpit at Sunday Mass: "It would be a good if all Catholics," he said, "when canvassed for their votes [...] satisfied themselves that candidates would, if elected, endeavour to get the decision of Eastbourne Council to pay only half of the fare for pupils to the new Catholic school in Bexhill rescinded." Further action was taken by the local church in October. Archdiocesan representatives wrote to the relevant Ministry, complaining about the legality of the council's decision. However, after a legal review by the town clerk, the decision to pay for half fares was kept. The council held out on the issue. In its early years, St. Richard's