This was a problem with Google's optical character recognition (OCR) mistaking the long s (ſ) as an f.
However, Google has since improved their OCR:
When we generated the original Ngram Viewer corpora in 2009, our OCR wasn't as good as it is today. This was especially obvious in pre-19th century English, where the elongated medial-s (ſ) was often interpreted as an f, so best was often read as beft. Here's evidence of the improvements we've made since then, using the corpus operator to compare the 2009 and 2012 versions:
Here's the original chart from the question, with the 2009 corpus:
Here's a chart with the same words but with the new 2012 corpus. This is much smoother and no longer has the large dip:
Here's the chart from the other answer, with the 2009 corpus:
And here it is with the new 2012 corpus. This shows hardly any muft or fhall type words:
The first sentence is asking for a promise or a prediction. The asker wants to know an exact time or if they can make a decision with certainty based the release of the clerk results.
Consider this situation:
"I'd like to make a purchase with my debit card. When will the money be in my account?"
"It will be in your account at 3pm."
"Ok, so if I make a purchase at 4pm, I will not have an overdraft?"
"That is correct."
The second sentence is asking for a possibility in the future, or about a regular action that occurred in the past. Because you have "will" in your first example, I will assume that you want the future possibility use of "would."
In your second sentence, it is possible that a number of conditions need to be met for something to happen in the future. Consider this example:
"Assuming I signed the check today and the issuing bank verified the funds today, when would the funds be available for use?"
"If everything happens today as you say, the funds would be available by 3pm."
You asked about using Will and Would in question form. The examples you gave start with "When" so the use of would and will relate to time, probability, and conditions that need to be met. Will and would are used in many other ways and is too long for this space. You can start by looking in Raymond Murphy's "English Grammar in Use" published by Cambridge. This book has many fine, clear examples that will help you understand this subject more. It is not expensive, and can be found almost anywhere, or ordered from a local bookseller who can easily obtain it from a regional distributer.
Best Answer
The first three uses of would are, as @Cathy points out, equivalent to epistemic must.
I.e, like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
some kind of evidence or presupposition, rather than an assertion of fact.
It seems likely that (1-2), for instance, are short for something like
(3) is almost the same -- (If I were to guess, I would say that) they were ...
(4) and (5) are different. For one thing, they're stressed main verbs, not auxiliaries.
For another, they're deontic, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being willing
(will (n) and will (v) and willing and willful and would are all from the same root).
So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and especially with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.
Note that in (5) there are two modals -- deontic would and deontic have to, so what's being said is that he was willing, and indeed obliged, to say that under certain conditions.
And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.