no.Could the Dutch have purchased parts of Australia around 1836-1850? Even just the really uninhabited parts.
no.
Well, I think if the Dutch made a claime on the northern parts they might have gotten awya with it, I guess. But still no.
The most important reason for it wouldn't be the British. The most important reason would be that the Dutch wouldn't want to. They knew of Australia for two centuries and they never made a move, simply because there isn't much that would be useful for the Dutch. If the Dutch would want to expand their colonial power, they would likely focus on either Borneo or the Gold Coast or maybe the rest of New Guinea. Australia? No. Oh and another important reason? The Netherlands was a pretty poor country that couldn't affort the luxury of a worthless colony, like Australia.
I can't think of a single instance in which Britain, say, 'sold' territory.
Also, while Country X buys territory Z from Country Y is a big meme on this board, possibly because there are so many Americans here, it really isn't a normal thing in real history.
'purchases' tend to fall into a few categories.
1) Country X has conquered the area, and it's a face saving measure for Country Y. Think US and Mexico. Or US and Spain.
2) Territory Z is a minor colonial area, of little interest to country Y, and hard to support. Think Caribbean colonies (later) and African Gold Coast outposts (earlier) of minor European powers.
3) Territory Z is totally indefensible, and you might as well sell it to a semi-friendly nation before an unfriendly nation takes it over. Think Louisiana purchase. Also, Alaska purchase.
I can't think of a single instance in which Britain, say, 'sold' territory.
Also, Bombay wasn't BOUGHT from the Portuguese, it was part of the Queen's dowry.