The full original image is on display on the website of the British Museum, with some explanations.

It is an anonymous Dutch pamphlet titled 't Moordadigh Trevrtoneel (The murderous tragedy) that shows Oliver Crowmell on the left and Thomas Fairfax on the right, each with an animal and symbolic attributes. The poem below the image calls Cromwell a "Tygerin", which at that time could mean any sort of big cat with spots or stripes^1, and Fairfax is called a "Hungry wolf". The text calls both men murderers: Cromwell is "a tiger who tore kings apart", Fairfax is the "executioner".

The animals are used as insults to symbolize the rapaciousness, viciousness, and cruelty of both men. This is obvious with the "Hungry wolf" (which the British Museum identifies as a fox, but the text calls it a wolf, and a hungry one), less so today with the "Tiger": striped/spotted big cats had been considered for a long time to be cruel animals, the sworn enemies of the noble (and non-striped, non-spotted) lion (Pastoureau, 2011). Thorley (2017) recapitulates the history of the word "Tiger" and notes how divorced it had become from the actual animal:

Its increasing use in English in the early modern period coupled with the creature’s folkloric history fostered developments in its meanings, leading to its being called on by seventeenth-century English speakers as an insult leveled against political or theological opponents. [...] In the case of tiger, I have shown the word — etymologically uncertain, but of ancient origin — accruing meanings as the centuries wore on, used to symbolize the fierceness of maternal protection, narcissism, and, in an increasingly common use, cruelty or savagery, even tending to the supernatural and diabolical.

"Tiger" was commonly associated with other wild beasts such as bears and wolves. The Calvinist John Vicars (1580–1652) attacked the Church of Rome in 1644 as follows, fulminating against (cited by Thorley, 2017):

the most insatiable rage and mercilesse matchlesse, accursed cruelty of the bloud-sucking Wolfe, Tyger, Monster (what can I fitly call her) of Rome, and her inhumane, roaring, raging and all ruining sons and nurssings.

Indeed we can find texts associating these animals together:

Tobias Smollett, The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753), Chapter Ten.

Among the principal figures of life, he observed few or no characters that did not bear a strong analogy to the savage tyrants of the wood. One resembled a tiger in fury and rapaciousness; a second prowled about like an hungry wolf, seeking whom he might devour;

Major Brook Bridges Parlby, Revenge Or The Novice of San Martino: A Tragedy (1818)

The brinded tiger or the hungry wolf

Would show more mercy

Other examples can be found, and in several languages. In the French Marseillaise anthem (1792), the enemies of the People are described as follows:

All of these tigers who, without pity,

Tear their mother's breast to pieces!

Tigers and wolves were just bad.

Notes

1. Tigers were known to be "brinded" since at least Marcus Terentius Varro in the first century BCE (Tigris qui est ut leo varius, from De lingua latina), and distinct from other big cats, but there was some naming ambiguity. The Tiger hunt painting by Rubens' from 1615 shows that a Flemish artist contemporary of the 't Moordadigh Trevrtoneel print was familiar with the respective appearance of lions, tigers, and leopards, but a French print of 1775 based on the same painting is titled Lion and tiger hunt and only shows lions and leopards! See also Faun and a tiger, a 16th century Italian print showing a weird-looking cat-like animal. To be fair, some additional research on that would be interesting.

Sources

• Pastoureau, Michel. Une histoire symbolique du Moyen Age occidental. Média Diffusion, 2015.
• Thorley, David. “Naming the Tiger in the Early Modern World.” Renaissance Quarterly 70, no. 3 (ed 2017): 977–1006. https://doi.org/10.1086/693884.

The link appears to be broken