The question is regarding the speech by Lord Macaulay(?). I have asked this question earlier in here, but the speech was different from this one.
From the answers of mentioned previous question,it can be easily concluded that, the speech asked there was not delivered by Macaulay, reasons supporting this conclusion are quite convincing by TED's answer and also the ngrams by Felix also pointed the same.
As I got another controversial version of the speech from the answers by T.E.D for that question. I thought of doing ngram searches on this version too. (I had updated my earlier question , but now I want to ask about this in separate question as suggested by my friend MosterTruck)
The other version of the speech got from the previous answers is:
I accept catholic beyond the across and across of India and I accept not apparent one getting who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such abundance I accept apparent in this country, such top moral values, humans of such caliber, that I do not anticipate we would anytime beat this country, unless we breach the actual courage of this nation, which is her airy and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I adduce that we alter her old and age-old apprenticeship system, her culture, for if the Indians anticipate that all that is adopted and English is acceptable and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their built-in self-culture and they will become what we ambition them, a absolutely bedeviled nation.
It is claimed that the speech is delivered in 1830's - 40's. The ngram results are interesting. Those 1830s and 1840s are really confusing and now I wonder about the source of this version of the same speech.
Even if ngrams are not the ultimate evidence, how these words are match with these years? Also What is the real reason behind controversies of this speech? Who benefits by making these kind of versions, if it is also a fake one, else what benefits are there for the people opposing the same if it is a real one?