How are Hugh and Thomas related?

In the 1871 Census for King Township, taken in April of that year,
we find Hugh Peacock and Thomas Peacock living on 46 acres and a 4 acre village lot respectively. We know that Hugh Peacock came to Canada in 1849 when he was about 14 years of age. By our standards, that would be a little young to emigrate alone; however, we do not know what family members, if any, came with him. According to the later census records of the Thomas Peacock family, they arrived in Canada in 1865, sixteen years after Hugh and about four years after Hugh’s move to the rural setting of King Township.

Entire families did not usually emigrate at the same time. Instead, some family members went ahead to make arrangements, and the rest followed a few weeks, months or years later, according to the financial situation of the family. However, sixteen years is a rather long gap between migrations. Furthermore, Hugh is too old to be Thomas’ son and furthermore, Thomas has a son named Hugh born in 1857. The other possibilities to explain their relationship are:

i Hugh is a nephew, the son of an older brother of Thomas and
came to Canada alone, with some other young men, or with his
father and possibly, mother and other siblings. Hugh named his
first son William and his second daughter, Catherine (absent in
the 1871 census in King). His second son, Samuel and first daughter,
Eliza seem to have been named after Ellen’s parents, the Waggots.
Following this line of logic which was a traditional naming pattern
for children, Hugh’s parents could be William and Catherine.

ii Hugh is a younger brother of Thomas and perhaps he came
to Canada with one or more younger brothers of Thomas.
In the death records of St. James Anglican Cathedral in
Toronto, there is an 1849 death for a William Peacock, age
30, but I have been unable to find any further information.
The reason that this seems significant is that Hugh was
married in that church. (This opinion is held by descendants of Sarah Peacock Beldon of Washington State - that is that Hugh was a younger brother of Thomas.)
iii Hugh is more distantly related, such as a cousin. There are a
number of other Peacock families in Ontario who were born in
Ireland, but without family records, there is no way to connect
them. There are also many Peacock families in the Eastern States,
and it is possible they are connected because Thomas’ son,
Frederick (absent in the 1871 census in King) married and had a
family in Philadelphia.

iv The two men are not related at all, just two Irish expatriates
of the same faith. However, I believe that there must have been
some familial relationship because they shared the same property
and because they used the same ‘given’ names for several of their
children.