I'm not really familiar enough with Wakefield's writings on NZ --- if that's what you're referring to --- to comment. His New Zealand Company was an example of the phenomenon I was talking about, although it came right at the end of the period I had in mind, i.e. the gradual settlements from the 1790s onward.
Regards,
Grant.
From: "michael" <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Is Wakefield's account reliable?
>
> Grant Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > The initial colonisation of New Zealand --- by people from New South
> > Wales --- also occurred without any permission from London and is a
better
> > example of what you are talking about. However, from January 26 1788
> > onwards, officials in Whitehall were virtually powerless over people on
the
> > far side of the world, including officials in Sydney and other colonial
> > centres, who could have stopped any informal spread of settlement, had
they
> > had any real interest in doing that. As soon as Whitehall realised it
was
> > dealing with fait accompli, it hastily recognised informal settlements
and
> > made a show of being in control. Before long, when the "squattocracy"
had
> > become the ruling class in NSW, it took steps to stop other people from
> > following its example.
> >