Pay special attention to the middle paragraph:
And so it may be that one day the Natural History Museum will swap out Darwin's memorial for another statue, perhaps to celebrate another occasion, or even re-replace it with Owen's statue (as I said before, Owen was a splendid scientist and champion of science-for-the-masses, if a bit of a curmudgeon, and he did found the Natural History Museum)."We do not make this request for the mere sake of perpetuating a memory; for so long as men occupy themselves with the pursuit of truth, the name of Darwin runs no more risk of oblivion than does that of Copernicus, or that of Harvey.
Nor, most assuredly, do we ask you to preserve the statue in its cynosural position in this entrance-hall of our National Museum of Natural History as evidence that Mr. Darwin's views have received your official sanction; for science does not recognise such sanctions, and commits suicide when it adopts a creed.
No; we beg you to cherish this Memorial as a symbol by which, as generation after generation of students of Nature enter yonder door, they shall be reminded of the ideal according to which they must shape their lives, if they would turn to the best account the opportunities offered by the great institution under your charge."
...read Huxley's address in its entirety here.
For now, though, I think it entirely appropriate that, to celebrate this period encompassing not only Darwin's bicentenary but also Wallace and Darwin's joint discovery of natural selection and the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, we have put Darwin's memorial back in the place where it was first unveiled. It is wholly in keeping with Huxley's plea in the last sentence quoted above, so long as we also bear in mind his warning* in the preceding sentence.
One of the best ways to heed it, as incited here on other occasions, is to welcome, perhaps even commission, honest appraisals of Darwin the man, warts and all, and for goodness sake, can we also please occasionally remember him without That Beard?
*Interestingly, Huxley's warning here would seem to anticipate later creationist claims that Darwinism is a religion ... or perhaps the creationists were, even then, using this as one of their talking points?