Here are links to the parliamentary archives (unfortunately the texts are in French, impossible to translate them, I really don't have time, believe me I'm sorry) concerning the discussion relating to the request for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794) as well as the reasoned discussion of Vadier who announces the impossibility of the Committee of General Security to present a report on the accusations brought against Ronsin and Vincent for lack of documents, during the session of 23 Nivôse Year II (January 12, 1794)

Which confirms my ideas: we know that it was Philippeaux and Fabre d'Eglantine who proposed the mention of arrest (especially Fabre) but let's be honest they are not the only ones responsible for their arrests, the majority of the CSP and the Convention who voted for are also responsible. The point is that contrary to the ideas of films of the French revolution Danton mostly let his colleagues speak for him (Desmoulins, Fabre, Philipeaux led the boat in the "faction" I put it in parentheses because it is more complex). Although we are at a time when Danton feeling condemned begins to go on the offensive (he has this in common with Hébert who backtracks in the most critical moments and sometimes lets Momoro and Ronsin lead the boat of the ultra revolutionary "faction") There is also as an ally of Danton Legendre who asks to speak. Bourdon de l'Oise is the one who is the most on the offensive against Vincent and Ronsin. To be fair Danton speaks out he asks for the release of Vincent and Ronsin in the same way as Fabre although it seems unfair to me for his colleague and ally Philippeaux (some would call Danton's attitude cowardly even if I find the word a little too strong). Interestingly, if Danton is applauded for his speech, the announcement of the release of Ronsin and Vincent is also applauded. This shows that the ultra-revolutionary faction is popular in Paris but still enjoys at this time a good respectability in the Convention although deputies are opposed to their release. Another most important point: the divergence of agreement between the Committee of General Security which announces not having found any pieces or evidence of accusation against Ronsin and Vincent and therefore in favor of their release (Vadier and Voulland) and some of the members of the Committee of Public Safety surely against . But to be fair Voulland and Vadier are for their releases but Bourdon de l'Oise is against the release (I think he was a member of the Committee of General Security) so there is a significant split. Another important point Levasseur announces that Mazuel, a Hébertist friend of Hanriot who would later be executed with Ronsin, Momoro, Vincent, Hébert and many others, had been arrested a first time on the proposal of Fabre d'Eglantine and was released very quickly. The Hébertists were therefore often attacked, which was not to help a possible reconciliation with the Committee of Public Safety (the Hébertists also have their share of responsibility, let's be honest I have the impression that all the "factions" and many deputies share the responsibility for these internal struggles)

The links:

Decree, proposed by Voulland, for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794):

Discussion relating to the request for the release of citizens Ronsin and Vincent, during the session of 14 Pluviôse Year II (February 2, 1794)

Discussion motivated by the report of Vadier which announces the impossibility of the committee of general security to present a report on the accusations brought against Ronsin and Vincenzo for lack of documents, during the session of 23 Nivôse year II (12 January 1794):

The Committee of General Security (F. Brunel)

In spite of having been charged with the « police politique », the Committee of General Security often passes for less « terrible » than the Committee of Public Safety. This, undoubtedly, is due to the earliness of its creation. Its « ancestor », the Comité des recherches of the Constituent Assembly which had been created in July 1789, thus bestowed a « legitimacy » upon it which the second committee did not possess. Let us therefore briefly recount its history before approaching the study of its personnel.

On 25 November 1791, the Legislative Assembly saw itself compelled to create a Committee of Surveillance, which adopted the name Committee of General Security in the aftermath of 10 August 1792. The Convention made this institution endure, first provisionally, then in a definitive manner by a decree in October 1792. Remaining inconsistent and complex until January 1793, the organisation of the committee continuously took shape until September 1793. After « Terror was made the order of the day » and the Law of Suspects was adopted, the Committee of General Security was divided into three sections, interrogations, correspondence and reports. A new decree modified this division of tasks in October 1793: « the general surveillance of the Republic is distributed in four parts ; each of them, under the supervision of at least three members, will be called region. The department of Paris will form only one of these regions. » The deputies of the committee assembled each day at the Hôtel de Brionne, from eight to eleven o'clock in the evening., in order to undertake the « ordinary » work, such as arrests, police raids, releases or sendings to the Revolutionary Tribunal. A new regulation of 20 Germinal Year II (9 April 1794) would determine the functioning of the committee in a definitive manner. It was composed of a bureau central which recorded the correspondence, four regions of surveillance, a bureau d'agence générale which dealt with the most important matters, particularly concerning generals and accused deputies, a bureau de l'arriéré, a bureau d'archives, and, finally, a secrétariat général, which resided « close to the room where the committee held its sessions ». At that time, the committee employed 122 persons (compared to 92 at the end of 1793 and 162 in Thermidor Year II). Among the employees, the most famous are undoubtedly the secretaries Bourguignon (called Dumolard) and Lauchet. The agents d'exéction often have a veritable historiographical reputation: let us cite Maillard (who died in 1794), Dossonville, Sénar (who has written Mémoires), Guénot and, above all, Héron, a former fighter in America who was closely connected to the Cordeliers. Let us also note that the Committee of General Security sometimes used Parisian revolutionary commissionaires for certain missions.

The function of the committee remained, on the whole, unchanged from 1792 to 1795: it was charged with foiling the « plots of the enemies of the Revolution », which would be called « royalists », refractory priests, « rebels » or « federalists », later « Indulgents » or « Exagérés », and, finally, « terrorists », « anarchists » and other « buveurs de sang ». Certain members were charged with reporting on important matters in Year II, such as the affairs of the East India Company, of Batz’s conspiracy or, still, of Catherine Théot. Moreover, a number of great Reports was made in the name of the two Committees of Public Safety and of General Security. One has often, on that issue, paid particular attention to the numerous encroachments committed by the Committee of Public Safety against the Committee of General Security, which has (partly, at least) served as an explanation for the crisis of Thermidor. Maybe it is necessary to nuance this judgement or, more exactly, to study this rivalry in more political terms of divergences among the Montagnards.

The number and, above all, the name of the committee’s members varied greatly from 1792 to the Year IV. It counted 30 deputies in October 1792, rather Montagnards than Girondins. The renewal of 7 January 1793 gave the majority to the Gironde (« it is Roland who has made the list », Marat had declared). The assassination of Le Peletier provoked a new disruption and reduced the number of elected members to 12 ; there were 18 in March, 9 and later 12 in September 1793, 16 in October and 14 in Frimaire Year II. Two men would then withdraw, the one brutally, Guffroy, and the other progressively, Panis. The committee henceforth only counted 12 members from Germinal to Thermidor Year II: Amar, Barbeau du Barran, Bayle, David, Jagot, Elie Lacoste, Lavicomterie, Le Bas, Louis (du Bas-Rhin), Rühl, Vadier and Voulland. After the death of Le Bas and the « purge » of Thermidor, 13 deputies sat in the committee, later 16, under the terms of the decree of 7 Fructidor Year II (24 August 1794) which determined the new competences (roughly identical to the previous ones) and, above all, ordered the monthly renewal of a fourth of the members and prohibited re-election for at least a month. On 15 Vendémiaire Year III (6 October 1794), the last members of the personnel of Year II, Amar, Du Barran and Louis (du Bas-Rhin), left the committee. The first truly post-Thermidorian committee was predominately composed of « Montagnards-réacteurs » and illustrates the rise in power of certain deputies such as Goupilleau (de Fontenay), Merlin (de Thionville), Legendre (de Paris) or André Dumont. The elections of Year III confirmed this kind of « rotation » with, nevertheless, the notable presence of the reinstated Girondins, starting in spring.

If the deputies who had been members of the Committee of General Security in Year II were persecuted as « Robespierre’s tail » (which is a comble for men who were thought to have precipitated the latter’s fall) and all (except for Louis du Bas-Rhin) suffered proscription, prison or death in Year III, this was not the case for the employees of the bureaux, who often made great careers under the Directory, the Consulate and the Empire: Bourguignon’s trajectory is exemplary here.