score:39
It looks fairly likely this story was invented around the turn of the 21'st Century.
The hits against it are:
Note that none of this is my own research, but rather a compilation of others' I found at the following places:
Upvote:7
Another point against the authenticity of the quote: The date of the speech is given as 2 February 1835. However, there was in fact no Parliament on that date; it had been dissolved on 29 December 1834, triggering the 1835 General Election, and was not summoned again until 19 February 1835. Here is the relevant page of Hansard.
Upvote:19
I think @T.E.D.'s answer makes a very convincing case for the speech being a modern forgery, like the Protocols or the Dulles Plan.
It's also, imho, a very inept forgery. As T.E.D. has pointed out the language is too modern. As one who has read some works by Macaulay, I must also add that the style does not seem to be his and is very much inferior.
To illustrate this point, I've made some Google Ngram searches for words in the text:
education system, high moral values
As you can see, all these expressions were absolutely not in vogue in Macaulay's time and only begin to be used extensively much much later. So I think it's not likely the person who wrote this text ever troubled himself to read a page of Macaulay. Which presumably rules out Macaulay himself...