Many brothels were the property of persons of wealth and position, who invested because of the high rentals. (Contagious Diseases enquiry, F.S.Standish, Q.37.) However, owners and financiers attracted considerable public criticism over the latter part of the 19th century for excessive charges while keeping their hands clean in society. John Stanley James lamented that ‘these miserable hovels bring in rents far higher than good cottages in other locations’ and that many of the proprietors are ‘men of repute, with the first seats at the synagogue’. (James, J.S. The Vagabond Papers. Melbourne, 1969 (1878), p.31.) At the 1882 Royal Commission Constable Bourke spoke of Mr Rosenthal, who had a number of brothels, furnishing and letting them in a form of time payment. Rosenthal furnished May Day Villa in Carlton, a high-class brothel with 2,000 pounds worth of the best furniture: ‘the Governor's house could not be furnished better’. He also said that fellow Bourke Street furniture retailer Nathan had similar brothels, ‘but there is no statute law in this country we can get at them’. (1882 Royal Commission Report, Qs 1101, 1103, 1107; 3988 (Winch).) Mr Nathan and Mr Rosenthal owned no less than 10 of the 35 brothels in the study area.

‘Advance’, in a letter to the Argus, wrote that some of the proprietors owned a large number of houses in different localities where the usual rent was 13 to 25 shillings per week; yet when furnished and let as brothels, the rent became 4 to 6 pounds per week. (Argus, 10 October 1881.) Sergeant Dalton reported to the 1882 Royal Commission that Mother Fraser paid [Mrs] Allen 19 pounds a week rent. (1882 Royal Commission Report, Q927.) Obviously, owning and leasing a brothel was a lucrative activity.